ML13213A025

Proto-Power Calculation 98-119, Revision B - Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

ML13213A025
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/30/2013
From:	Dominion, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
09-119, Rev B, 94-DES-111-M2, Rev 00
Download: ML13213A025 (53)

Text

Serial No 13-438 Docket No. 50-336 Attachment 2 Proto-Power Calculation 98-119 Rev. B Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

Millstone Power Station Unit 2

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 VB PAE I OF 38 S GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIFNATOR VERIFIEDBY DATE JONo 2/23/99 10-296 CLIT NNECo "OEN' MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TnrtB Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

1. PURPOSE This calculation presents the analysis of the thermal performance test results for the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) heat exchangers conducted as part of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company's (NNECo) Millstone Point Unit 2 response to NRC Generic Letter 89-13 [References (1) and (2)]. Thermal performance tests were conducted on 10/14/97 (prior to tube side cleaning) and 10/15/97 (following tube side cleaning) in accordance with Reference (3). The applicable heat exchangers are as follows:

" X-83B Air Coolant Heat Exchanger (AC)

• X-53B Lube Oil Cooler (LO)

" X-45B Jacket Water Cooler (JW)

2. BACKGROUND The overall objective of the Millstone Point Unit 2 heat exchanger thermal performance testing program is to develop a heat exchanger cleaning schedule that is specific to each group of heat exchangers in the scope of the GL 89-13 program. To devise the optimum cleaning frequency for a particular group, a series of thermal performance tests on a representative member of each group is required.

An indication of the total margin available in the tested heat exchanger is possible if the performance test is accomplished with the heat exchanger in a "clean" condition (i.e., shortly after a typical tube-side cleaning evolution). A relative measure of the rate of fouling for the heat exchanger can be established if it is tested again prior to the next tube-side cleaning. Repeated tests that demonstrate acceptable thermal performance prior to the next scheduled cleaning will clearly demonstrate the acceptability of the selected cleaning frequency.

The test sequence for the first series of MP2 thermal performance tests will be reversed from that just described in order to obtain an initial assessment of the fouling accumulation since the last known tube-side cleaning and the effectiveness of tube-side cleaning. In the first test sequence, therefore, the heat exchanger is tested in the "as-found" condition, cleaned using normal cleaning practices and re-tested in the "as-left" condition.

This calculation analyzes data from both the "as-found" and "as-left" thermal performance tests.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 REv B PAGr. 2 OF38

• GROTON, CONNECTICUT OP,^GINA1R fDAT 2/23/99 v,,r*.nnr Y JOBNO.10-296

'LUM NNECo "'o0 fMP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TITLE Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

3. DESIGN INPUTS 3.1 Heat Exchanger Model The EDG heat exchangers were modeled using PROTO-HXTm Version 3.02. The model inputs are documented in Reference (4) and included as Attachment A. A comparison run against the conditions specified in Reference (4) is included in Attachment A. Attachment P contains a description and an electronic copy of the PROTO-HXTM files.

3.2 Benchmark Analysis The design conditions of Reference (4) demonstrated that the minimum allowable service water mass flow rate is 259,454 lb/hr [calculated in Reference (4) as 507.15 gpm at 75T1]. The key thermal performance parameters of this demonstration are as follows:

0 Parameter AC LO JW /

Tube-Side Flow (lbm/hr) 259,454 259,454 259,454 Tube-Side Inlet Temperature (OF) 75 83.3 92.6 Tube-Side Outlet Temperature (OF) 83.3 92.6 104.7 Shell-Side Flow (Ibm/hr) 199,920 215,000 199,920 Shell-Side Inlet Temperature (*F) 134 215 175 Active Tubes 100 ofl0 169 of 188 99of110 '7 Heat Load (BTU/hr) 2,067,000 2,310,000 2,994,355 3.3 Tube Plugging Parameter Value Reference Tube Plugging Configuration During Test AC: 0 (5) ~1 LO: 1 JW: 0 Tube Plugging Limit AC: 10 (4) 7 LO: 19 JW: 11 3.4 Fouling Factors The design fouling factors for all three heat exchangers are the same: 0.001 for the shell-side of .

each and 0.0005 for the tube-side of each per the vendor data sheets included with Attachment A.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CLCNo.98-119 RVB PAGE 3 O"38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT OIGfl^ATO* ATE2/23/99 VEIFIEDY* JOBNO.10-296 CLIENT NNECo PJECT MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TIE Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 3.5 Test Data Test data was collected during thermal performance tests of the EDG heat exchangers completed in accordance with test procedure EN 21228 [Reference (3)]. The test data are included in files m2startdif (909KB) dated 10/14/97 and mp2test2.dif (813 KB) dated 10/15/97.

3.6 Service Water Flow Conversion Service water flow measurements (in mAmps DC) taken during the test are to be corrected to actual gallons per minute using the following equation per Attachment A of Reference (14):

-0.3935(mAmps)' + 34.119(mAmps) - 183.25 3.7 License Limiting Conditions

• The license limiting conditions for any heat exchanger are defined as that set of limiting (i.e., most demanding) thermal conditions that form the licensing basis for the heat exchanger and its associated system. As such, the license limiting conditions represent the basis for the specification of the test acceptance criteria.

The design basis for the EDG heat exchangers is tied directly to the performance requirements of the EDGs since the electrical loading of the EDG has a direct relationship with the thermal load on the heat exchangers. Each EDG is rated as follows:

Power Level Rated Duration 2750 kW Continuous 3000 kW 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> 3250 kW 300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br /> However, the predicted loads for the EDGs (per Reference (6) Section 8.3.2.1) indicate that the continuous rating of 2750 kW is not exceeded. Therefore, the thermal loads on the EDG heat exchangers associated with the continuous EDG load of 2750 kW will be used as the design limiting load condition.

The outside ambient temperature also affects EDG heat exchanger performance. Reference (6)

• states that the maximum ambient temperature used for MP2 HVAC analyses is 861F. However, reference (6) does not specifically address the design maximum site ambient temperature as it relates to EDG operation, therefore this value is not used directly in this calculation. See the

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CAL.XN,.98_119 REVB PA^u 40r38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIN Ro 2/23/99

,nERIin ny J,, NO.10-296 CU,*T NNECo PRo0 MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program "n'-" Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results applicable subsections within section 6.5 for a detailed discussion concerning outside air temperature affects on the EDG and how they are addressed for heat exchanger performance.

The license limiting conditions for the EDG heat exchangers have been compiled from applicable design documentation and are presented below.

Parameter AC LO JW Tube-Side (Service Water)

Inlet Temperature ('F) 75 83.31') 92,6(l)

Flow (Ibm/br) 259,454(2) 259,454(2) 259,454(2)

Flow (gpm) 506(2) 506(2) 506(2)

Shell-Side (Process Fluid)

Inlet Temperature (*F)

Flow (Ibm/hr)

Flow (gpm)

Heat Removal Rate (BTU/hr)

Notes:

1. Reference (4). With the three heat exchangers connected in series, the service water inlet to the LO and JW heat exchangers is dependent upon the thermal performance of the respective upstream heat exchangers,

2. Reference (4) derived 259,454 lbm/hr (-507 gpm at 75*F) as the minimum service water flow that would allow EDG operation with 10 tubes (9%) plugged in the air coolant heat exchanger, 19 tubes (10%) plugged in the lube oil cooler, and 11 tubes (10%) plugged in the jacket water cooler and still maintain EDG thermal parameters within limits. This equates to a specified tube flow of 506 gpm to match mass flow rates in PROTO-HX since the volumetric to mass flow rate conversion in PROTO-HX is referenced to the fluid density at 60°F. (see Attachment A)

3. There are no alarms or EDG trips associated with the air cooling water heat exchanger loop. Attachment A to Reference (4) notes that 134°F represents a practical maximum for this parameter. Also, Attachment A vendor data sheet for X-83A/B gives 134°F as the expected process return temperature at the originally specified flow conditions with design fouling factors applied.

4. Per Attachment A to Reference (4), 230'F represents the alarm limit for lube oil temperature for continuous EDG operation at 2750 kW.

5. Per Attachment A to Reference (4), 200*F represents the alarm limit for jacket water temperature for continuous EDG operation at 2750 kW.

6. Reference (4/ calculated the mass flow rates as shown [I. C mass flow from Attachment A of Reference (4)].

The volumetric flow rate is the PROTO-HX equivalent flow to achieve the designated mass flow rate (see Attachment A).

7. Heat loads derived in Reference (4) from vendor analyses.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION 11 GROTON, CONNECTICUT 11 J

CWENT NNECo PRoJEci MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program

"' Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 3.8 Test Acceptance Criteria The heat exchanger thermal performance parameter selected for assessing the performance of the EDG heat exchangers is the process (shell) side return temperature at license limiting conditions.

The test acceptance criteria, therefore, is that the process (shell) side return temperature, when projected to the license limiting conditions and adjusted for total test uncertainty, must have a maximum value as follows:

Heat Exchanger Limiting Shell-Side Inlet Reference Air Coolant (X-83B) 134 0 F Reference (4)

Lube Oil (X-53B) 230OF Reference (4) /

Jacket Water (X-45B) 200OF Reference (4) 3.9 Temperature Measurement Location Data The pipe data listed below defines the piping configuration at each of the surface mounted RTD temperature measurement locations.

EDG Heat Exchanger SW Piping Specification Pipe Segment Size Wall Thickness Pipe Material Lining Material (Reference) (Reference) (Reference) (Reference)

EDG inlet 6" Sch. 40 0.280" CS 3/16" Rubber V 6-JGD-4 OD-6.625" (9) (8) (10)

(7) (7) (8) (9) Assumption (5.2)

Air Coolant HX 0.560" Aluminum Bronze None SW Nozzles Assumption (5.2) (11)

Lube Oil HX 0.560" Aluminum Bronze None SW Nozzles Assumption (5.2) (11) 7 Jacket Water HX 0.560" Aluminum Bronze None SW Nozzles Assumption (5.2) (11)

EDG outlet 6" Sch. 40 0.280" CS 3/16" Rubber 6-JGD-7 OD=6.625" (9) (8) (10)

(7) (7) (8) (9) Assumption (5,2)

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION cALcNo- 98&119 IRYB PA`H 6 OF38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORdOINATRý DATE2/23/99 o

VERIFIEDBY JOBNO.10-296 cLIE NNECo 11"4- MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program wrP Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results EDG Heat Exchanger Process-Side Piping Specification _ _.

Pipe Segment Size Wall Thickness Pipe Material

.. (Reference) (Reference) (Reference)

Air Coolant System 4" Sch. 40, OD=4.500" -" 0.237" CS ./

• HX inlet and outlet (9) (12) (9) Assumption (5.2)

Assumption (5.2)

Lube Oil System 4" Sch. 40, OD=4.500"') 0.237" CS, HX inlet (9) (12) (9) Assumption (5.2)

Assumption (5.2)

Lube Oil System 5" Sch. 40, OD=5.563" 0.258" CS '

HX outlet (9) (12) (9) Assumption (5.2)

Assumption (5.2)

Jacket Water System 5" Sch. 40, OD=5.563"-' 0.258" CS/

HX inlet and outlet (9) (12) (9) Assumption (5.2)

Assumption (5.2) _ _

3.10 Temperature Gradient Analysis The following inputs are used for the quantification of the gradient across the pipe wall for each surface mounted RTD location (for test data see Section 3.5):

Test Material Parameters Parameter Value Reference/Basis Tube-Side pipe wall thermal conductivity 26 BTU/hr-ft-°F (13) [typical for CS]

Tube-Side Hx nozzle thermal conductivity 46 BTU/hr-ft-°F PROTOHX Properties (Al-Bronze)

Process-Side pipe wall thermal conductivity 26 BTU/hr-ft-°F (13) [typical for CS]

Rubber lining thermal conductivity 0.093 BTU/hr-ft-0 F (13) [hard rubber]

Test insulation thermal conductivity 0.0275(1) BTU/hr-ft-OF Attachment D @ 200°F Test insulation thickness 4 inches (3) [test specification]

Notes: (I) Assuming an insulation mean temperature of 2000F is conservative since a higher thermal conductivity increases the Gradient Bias.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 REV B PAGE 7 OF38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORJGFNATOR DATE 2/23/99 VERIPIM

• ,Y* JOBNo.10-296 NNECo CLIENT "oEcrMP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program 1h

" Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results As-Found Test Parameters Parameter Value IReference/Basis AC Tube-Side Flow 212 gpm [test flow less uncertainty]

AC Tube-Side Inlet Temperature 64.8 OF [test data rounded down]

AC Tube-Side Outlet Temperature 80 OF [test data rounded down]

AC Shell-Side Inlet 116 OF [test data rounded up]

AC Shell-Side Outlet 106 OF [test data rounded up]

AC Shell-Side Flow 400 gpm design flow assumed LO Shell-Side Inlet 189 OF [test data]

LO Shell-Side Flow 500 gpm design flow assumed JW Shell-Side Inlet 169 OF [test data rounded up]

JW Shell-Side Flow 400 gpm design flow assumed JW Tube-Side Outlet 111.7 OF [test data - location of highest #]

Room Temperature 86/88 OF [test data, pre/post test readings]

Room Temperature error 20 F [bounds the 0.25°F spec. in test]

Room Temperature (for high temp. pipes) 84 OF [test data - 2°F error] higher AT Room Temperature (for low temp. pipes) 90 OF [test data + 2'F error] higher AT As-Left Test Parameters Parameter Value Reference/Basis AC Tube-Side Flow 235 gpm [test flow less uncertainty]

AC Tube-Side Inlet Temperature 65 OF [test data rounded down]

AC Tube-Side Outlet Temperature 82 OF [test data rounded down]

AC Shell-Side Inlet 119 OF [test data rounded up]

AC Shell-Side Outlet 108 OF [test data rounded up]

AC Shell-Side Flow 400 gpm design flow assumed LO Shell-Side Inlet 192 OF [test data rounded up]

LO Shell-Side Flow 500 gpm design flow assumed JW Shell-Side Inlet 169 0F [test data rounded up]

JW Shell-Side Flow 400 gpm design flow assumed JW Tube-Side Outlet 116.5 OF [test data - location of highest #]

Room Temperature 90 OF [test data]

Room Temperature error 2°F [bounds the 0.25°F spec. in test]

Room Temperature (for high temp. pipes) 88 EF [test data - 2*F error] higher AT Room Temperature (for low temp. pipes) 92 OF [test data + 2'F error] higher AT

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 Ruv B PAGE 8 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIOINA1O l DATE2/23/99 VERFIEDBY JORNO.10-296 CLUrW NNECo PROJECIMP2 GL 89-13 Heat ExchangerTesting Program

• ILE Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 3.11 Flow Measurement Uncertainty The measurement uncertainty corresponding to the "as-found" and "as-left" test flow rates is derived in Attachment Q using inputs obtained from Reference (14).

3.12 DAS Accuracy The temperature measurements are made with precision Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs) in combination with a data acquisition system (DAS). The DAS contributions to the temperature measurement loop accuracy consist of the following terms:

Term Value Basis DAS Accuracy 0.090 0 C Attachment F (highest value taken for conservatism)

DAS Resolution 0.006'C Attachment F (highest value taken for conservatism)

DAS Repeatability 0.030TC Attachment F (highest value taken for conservatism) 3.13 Cleaning History Per Reference (15), the EDG coolers were last cleaned 3/5/97 by AWO #M2-96-09207. This represents a 7-month interval between the last cleaning and the as-found thermal performance test analyzed in this calculation.

4. APPROACH The heat exchanger data analysis process consists of the following steps, each of which is explained in greater detail in the sections that fololv.

• Reduction of test data

• Calculation of measurement uncertainty

" Derivation of limiting SW flow rate

" Derivation of analytical corrections for off-design test conditions

" Derivation of analytical uncertainty

" Application of corrections

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNo.98-119 ,RVB IPA,,9 or 38 0 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ,RcNATOR VF.RlrfDBv

!^'ra Scott Ingalls 2/23/99 NO.10-296 JOB cuENT NNECo 1ko,*cr MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program iritL Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 4.1 Reduction of Test Data The reduction of the raw test data into meaningful input to the thermal performance evaluation is completed in accordance with the methodology of Reference (16). The specific methodology includes the following key activities described in the sections that follow:

• Selection of Test Data Segment

" Calculation of Sensor Average

• Calculation of Sensor Standard Deviation

• Calculation of Parameter Average 4.1.1 Selection of Test Data Segment The raw data is reviewed to identify a 30 minute segment (encompassing 31 data points) during which all measured parameters are stable or nearly stable.

The minimum number of data points (31) is specified to minimize the uncertainty contribution of the instrument precision error calculated in Section 4.2.2. The value of the "Two Tailed Student t" term described in Section 4.2.2, and hence the overall precision uncertainty, is at its lowest for sample sizes greater than thirty.

4.1.2 Calculation of Sensor Averages The average value of the data points collected from each sensor is calculated as follows:

1 I X=- IX [Equation 2.3, Reference (16)]

n k--I ,

Where:

X The average value of the sensor over the selected data segment n = The number of data points

- The individual sensor reading at a given data point

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 Rv B PAGE 10 O 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGNA.O, DATr 2/23/99 VE*RFIEDBY JOB, N 10-296 CLIENT NNECo PROJECrMP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TILE Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 4.1.3 Calculationof the Sensor PrecisionIndex The sensor standard deviation provides a quantitative indication of data scatter. An estimate of the standard deviation known as the precision index is calculated as follows:

S - [Equation 2.2, Reference (16)]

n-I Where:

S - The precision index (an estimate of the standard deviation)

Xk - The individual sensor reading at a given data point

= The average value of the sensor readings over the selected data segment as defined by the following relationship:

- 1in X=_1n koi k [Equation 2-3, Reference (16)]

n The number of data points (the desired number is 31 data points taken one minute apart) 4.1.4 Calculationof ParameterAverages Several test parameters include multiple sensor readings for the same parameter (e.g., three or four temperature sensors measuring heat exchanger tube-side inlet temperature). Using the average value derived for each sensor in Section 4.1.2, the average value for each test parameter is calculated as follows:

mwhre where:

S X, Average reading for sensor "i"

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION cALw. 98_119 Rv B PAGE 11I F38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT RIGMATOR DAI, 2/23/99 VRMoEDBY BNO.10-296 JOB cLNT NNECo PROIICT MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program "rI' Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results m = Number of sensors associated with selected parameter Compilation of the parameter averages provides what can now be referred to as the nominal test data: one value rcpresenting each of the test parameters of interest in the thermal performance analysis.

4.2 Calculation of Measurement Uncertainty Measurement uncertainty is the uncertainty in the values chosen to represent the measured parameters. The uncertainty associated with these inputs is accounted for by considering the following:

• Bias Measurement Uncertainty

, Precision Measurement Uncertainty O Each of these measurement uncertainty contributions is treated separately in the subsections that follow.

4.2.1 Bias Measurement Uncertainty The analysis of measurement bias uncertainty takes into account four sources of bias error as follows:

, Instrument Bias Uncertainty

• Spacial Bias Uncertainty

• Gradient Bias Uncertainty

• Data Reduction Bias Uncertainty Each of these contributors to total measurement bias uncertainty is discussed in greater detail in the subsections that follow.

4.2.1.1 Tnstrument Bias Uncertainty Instrument bias uncertainty is the baseline inaccuracy of the measurement system and includes uncertainties attributable to the following:

Sensors (e.g., RTD, Flow Element, etc.)

• Transmitters

• Data Acquisition System

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO 98-119 REVB "A^ 12 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGI)ATOR

• DATE2/23/99 VERIFIED Y0BýB 10-296 CuINT NNECo PRoC13 MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program l.TLB Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 4.2.1.2 Spacial Bias Uncertainty Parameter spacial bias uncertainties are a result of using point measurements to determine a bulk parameter. The spacial bias of a given parameter can be calculated as follows:

B spacial - tS 72 [Equation 3.26, Reference (16)]

'vMi Where:

S72 M-1 [Equation 3.23, Reference (16)]

S72 Spacial precision index [Table 2.3 of Reference (16)]

t = Two-Tailed Student t value for 95% confidence and n-1 degrees of freedom

[Table 2.5 of Reference (16)]

m = Number of sensors (i.e., spacial measurement locations)

= Average for sensor "j" over the selected data segment [calculated in Section 4.1.2]

X Average for parameter considering all sensors [calculated in Section 4.1.4]

4.2.1.3 Gradient Bias Uncertainty Surface mounted RTDs do not measure the fluid temperature directly, resulting in a temperature gradient between the fluid and the sensor. The effect of the temperature gradient is presented in the form of a bias in the temperature measurement, Bgdij,,a. To minimize the gradient, and therefore the bias uncertainty, the sensors were covered with insulation.

Derivation of the gradient bias and the associated terms is presented in Attachment E. The fluid properties used in Attachment E are from References (17), (18), (19), and (20).

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 REV B PAGE 13 O' 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT oATE ORIGINATOR 2/23/99

,,ErFnEDDY JOoNO,10-296 CL,*H NNECo ".ROK

.. MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program T"I Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 4.2.1.4 Data Reduction Bias Uncertainty Data reduction Bias uncertainty, Bd, is the estimate of the bias error in the calculated bulk average value of a parameter which varies continuously in time and space based upon the average of a finite number of measurements of the parameter over time and space. The estimate of the uncertainty is based on knowledge of the actual parameter variation and estimation of the resulting integration error due to the technique used to average the individual point measurements.

Based on the conservative use of number rounding/truncating throughout the calculation and the significant digits necessary for meaningful results, data reduction bias is considered negligible for the heat exchanger thermal performance test and analysis methodologies utilized for the Generic Letter 89-13 program.

4.2.1.5 Total Measurement Bias Uncertainty The total bias uncertainty associated with the measurement of the parameter is the combination of the instrument bias and spacial bias as follows:

2 Brneas = +

+J(B((oc)2 )2 + (Bdr )' + (Bd.grdie,) [Eq. 3.16, Reference (16)]

4.2.2 PrecisionMeasurement Uncertainty Precision measurement uncertainty is the error introduced by the random scatter of repeated measurements of a given parameter.

The precision index, S,,, for a single instrument is defined as the standard deviation of the one minute average readings for the instrument:

2 X)

(

S1 = [Equation 2.2, Reference (16)]

Where:

n = The number of sensor readings

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CA,.CNO.98-119 nvB PAGE14 oF38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIINA^1OR "A-E 2/23/99 VERIFIED BY JOBNO.10-296 curwrN NECo PROEcT MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program urr Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results Xk = Individual sensor reading X The average value of the sensor readings over the selected data segment as defined by the following relationship:

X= - Xk [Equation 2.3, Reference (16)]

n k-1 For the case where muitiple sensor readings are used to represent a single parameter, the pooled precision index, Spooed, for a single parameter is calculated using the individual sensor precision indices as:

Spooled -- I [Equation 2.5, Reference (16)]

Where:

Sy the precision index of the data set for specific sensor m = Number of sensors (i.e., spacial measurement locations)

The precision index for each mean parameter value, is calculated using the pooled parameter precision index as:

S ". pooled _Spole [Equation 2.7, Reference (16))

" 1i/l 2

Where:

S- Precision index for the mean parameter value X

in = Number of sensors (i.e., spacial mea: .,rement locations) n = Number of readings at each location (one minute averages)

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION 'ALCNO .98-119 ^

PAV 15 OF38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT oKA.NATOR

• 2/23/99

(^'r VER" BY *,H NO.10-296 cuFT NNECo PROCr MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TTB Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results Note that the final equality in the equation above assumes that each location has the same number of readings.

4.2.3 Total ParameterMeasurement Uncertainty The total uncertainty, U1,, for each of the measured parameters is calculated by combining the overall bias and precision uncertainties as the square-root-sum-squares as:

2 U,, = B,, (tS-) [Equation 2.26, Reference (16)]

kt Where:

U, Total uncertainty for measured parameter "x" B,, Total measurement bias error of parameter "x" [calculated in Section 4.2.1.5]

t Two-Tailed Student t value for 95% confidence and n-I degrees of freedom

[Table 2.5 of Reference (16)]

n - Number of measurements taken (one minute averages)

S-X = Precision index for the mean parameter value [calculated in Section 4.2.2]

4.3 Derivation of Analytical Uncertainty The analytical uncertainty represents the uncertainty associated with the ability of the ! nat exchanger performance software model PROTO-HXTM to accurately characterize the heat exchanger's thermal performance at test conditions and to predict the heat exchanger's performance at licensed limiting conditions.

Analytical uncertainty will be treated as a bias in this analysis in that it will consistently be either high or low and will not vary randomly. Since the methodology of this test and analysis of results centers on corrections to test results based on changes in PROTO-HX predictions of shell-side inlet temperature, the analytical uncertainty will effectively cancel out. Analytical uncertainty, therefore, will not be included in this analysis.

PROTO-POWERCORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 B RflV PAGE16 OF 38 0 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGTNATOR VERIFPI.,,Y DATE 2/23/99 JOI NO 10-296 cLIEN NNECo PROYCr MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program

'ME Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 4.4 Derivation of Limiting SW Flow Rate Reference (4) derived the minimum allowable service water flow rate to the EDG heat exchangers for 75°F, design fouling conditions and specified tube plugging. Since the thermal performance test was performed with service water inlet temperature at 650 F, testing with the limiting flow rate derived in Reference (4) would have provided excessive cooling. This, in turn, would have led to significant shell-side bypass flows around the heat exchanger which would not have challenged the heat exchanger thermal performance. By throttling flow-to a value that coincides with the available inlet temperature, a limiting condition is approximated. The limiting flow rate associated with the service water inlet is derived with the PROTO-HX models of the three heat exchangers. The constant heat and cold inlet temperature calculation method was used as this method calculates the process-side inlet temperature necessary to remove the fixed heat load.

A series of iterations were completed based on varying service water flow rate through the EDG heat exchangers. With each iteration, the test service water inlet temperature is held constant while the service water flow input was reduced in increments to calculate the shell-side inlet temperature for each flow rate. The resulting shell-side inlet temperature calculated with each iteration was compared to the maximum allowable temperature for the heat exchanger being analyzed. The service water flow value that increased the shell-side inlet temperature to a value just equal to or-slightly less than the maximum allowable temperature became the minimum acceptable service water flow through the heat exchanger being analyzed.

The next heat exchanger in the series was checked at the flow rate derived for the first heat exchanger using the predicted service water outlet temperature of the first heat exchanger as the specified inlet service water temperature for the second heat exchanger. If acceptable results were derived for the second heat exchanger, the third heat exchanger was checked at the same service water flow rate using the predicted service water outlet temperature of the second heat exchanger as the specified inlet service water temperature for the third heat exchanger. If all three heat exchangers demonstrated that the shell-side inlet temperature could be maintained below the specified maximum values with the new service water flow rate, that flow rate became the minimum acceptable flow rate for the EDG heat exchangers for that service water inlet temperature. If either heat exchanger downstream of the first did not demonstrate adequate heat removal capacity at the derived service water flow rate (i.e., the shell-side inlet temperature exceeded the maximum allowed), the iterative process continued by going back to the first heat exchanger and incrementally increasing the service water flow rate until the limiting cooler demonstrated acceptable performance.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION I CALCNO.98-119 11 I

GROTON, CONNECTICUT MOGMTOR VERMFIED RY cL'Er NNECo PRo ,f7M 2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program NNECo PROJ1X~M[P2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program "nrL* Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results This process was completed to define the limiting SW flow rate at the test conditions as well as at the limiting ultimate heat sink temperature of 750 F but with the current tube plugging configuration.

4.5 Derivation of Analytical Corrections The test methodology employed for this test is a method that combines the Functional Test and the Heat Transfer Test described in References (21) and (22). The Functional Test aspect is derived from the fact that under normal EDG surveillance conditions, the heat load on the heat exchangers closely approximates the design basis heat load with steady state conditions fairly easy to maintain assuming steady Service Water System configuration and steady EDG electrical load. Also, process-side temperatures are a direct indicator of satisfactory heat exchanger thermal performance under full-load conditions. The typical diesel surveillance test, however, does not satisfy the criteria for a true Functional Test for the following reasons:

" The Licensed Limiting Condition air inlet temperature (maximum site temperature) is not typically available during the surveillance test (higher EDG air inlet temperature provides additional heat load to the air cooling subsystem);

• The Licensed Limiting Condition service water inlet temperature of 75°F is not typically available during the surveillance test; and,

" The Licensed Limiting Condition service water flow rates are not typically used during the surveillance test.

Additionally, considering the test methodology to be employed with lower service water inlet temperatures during testing (i.e., throttling service water flow to a limiting value corresponding to the available service water temperature) corrections will be required if the specified limiting flow rate is not achievable during test due to throttle valve limitations.

If the service water flow rate is throttled to a value as close to the Licensed Limiting Condition value as is reasonably achievable and the heat exchanger test is run during the season that the service water and air intake temperatures are as close to the Licensed Limiting Conditions as is reasonably achievable, the "near" Functional Test results can be corrected for the "off-design" conditions of service water temperature, air inlet temperature, and service water flow (if necessary).

These corrections are derived through heat transfer analysis of the heat exchangers with the PROTO-HX model of each heat exchanger. The models will be used to calculate the relationship between tlf e "off-design" parameters and the r -ccess-side temperatures that define the limiting condition of the EDG.

PROTO-POWERCORPORATION ALCNo. 98_119 RvB I-AGE18oP38 0 GROTON, CONNECTICUT. OPIGINATOR VEMEDB DATE2/23/99 JOBNO.10-296 CLIEN NNECo oI"Cr MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TITLE Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results The constant heat and cold inlet temperature calculation method was used as this method calculates the process-side inlet temperature necessary to remove the fixed heat load. This method requires the input of a heat load, a tube-side flow rate and inlet temperature and a shell-side flow rate. Since the corrections are derived at an operating point as close to the design limiting condition as possible, the values used as input for each iteration are chosen accordingly. Specifically, since bypass flow can be expected to be a minimum when the heat exchanger is fully challenged, the shell-side flow rate was set at the system design value (i.e., bypass flow was set to zero). In each iteration, therefore, process-side flow was set at the design value and service water temperature and flow were varied. The resulting process-side inlet and tube-side outlet temperatures were calculated for each case. Also, in order to derive a correction for off-design heat loads in the AC heat exchanger, the tube-side inlet temperature was held constant at the test temperature of 650F. This provides acceptable results since the correction factors will not change appreciably with changes in tube-side inlet temperature (as can be seen by the "Flow Correction Factors" data for various tube-side inlet temperatures in Attachment K).

Dividing the change in process-side inlet temperature by the change in the service water parameter provides a correction factor. This factor as shown in subsequent calculation sections, is then multiplied by the actual magnitude of the "off-design" condition to derive the required correction to the associated tube-side outlet temperature or process-side inlet temperature. Derivation of the analytical correction factors are included in Attachments K, L and M. The PROTO-HXTM results which are summarized in Attachments K, L, and M, are stored on an optical disk accompanying this calculation (see Attachment P). The correction factors developed for all three coolers are based on design shell-side fouling and zero tube-side fouling for correlation to the "as-left" condition.

The sensitivity of the correction factors to changes in fouling assumptions was assessed for the AC by recalculating the correction factors with varying heat exchanger fouling factors. Specifically, the correction factors were recalculated for the AC heat exchanger (for the 65°F case) using zero fouling and design fouling on both the tube and shell sides. The results, included in Attachment K, show that the correction factors are relatively insensitive to fouling factor. The exception is the shell-side inlet temperature correction for a varying heat load. Therefore, the original correction factors will be applied to the two sets of test data (the before cleaning and after cleaning data),

except for the shell-side inlet temperature heat load correction. Since the heat load correction only applies to the AC, it is not calculated for the other two coolers. The heat load correction for the AC heat exchanger will conservatively utilize the correction factor derived using the design fouling factors since it produces the highest correction to AC inlet temperature.

The correction factors derived in Attachments K, L, and M are summarized in the table below:

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNo,98-119 j EVB PAGE 19 OF38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGJNATOR l  ! DATF- 2/23/99 VERSIED BY JoE NO.10-296 NNECo PRoEC.- MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TTL. Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results Heat Exchanger Performance Correction Factors Correction Factors Correction Factors Correction (65 0F Case)* (75OF Case)*

• AC Tube Outlet Temperature 1.000 °F/0 F 1.000 OF/OF SW Inlet Temperature AC Tube Outlet Temperature 0.048 *F/gpm 0.040 °F/gpm SW Flow A C Tube Outlet Temperature 0.156 OF/% 0.156 OF/%

% ofDaeign A C HeatLoad ACShell Inlet Temperature 0.819 OF/OF 0.839 OF/OF SW Inlet Temperature AC Shell Inlet Temperature 0.072 °F/gpm 0.060 °F/gpm SW Flow A C Shell Inlet Temperature 0.647 0F/% 0.647. 0 F/%

% of Dayign AC Heat Load LO Tube Outlet Temperature 0.999 OF/OF 0.999 °F/°F SW Inlet Temperature LO Tube Outlet Temperature 0.101 °F/gpm 0.084 0F/gpm SW Flow LO Shell Inlet Temperature 0.480 OF/OF 0.500 °F/°F SWInlet Temperature LO Shell Inlet Temperature 0.069 °F/gpm 0.056 OF/gpm SWFlow JWShell Inlet Temperature 0.838 °F/°F 0.848 OF/°F SW Inlet Temperature JWShell Inlet Temperature 0.172 °F/gpm 0.143 °F/gpm SW Inlet Temperature

• Note: Since the "650F Case" involves correcting the SW temperature and flow to lower values very near to the test values, the correction factors shown have been derived through a focused average of the correction factors of Attachments K, L and M that are more closely associated with the lower temperature and flow ranges of applicability (i.e., the average is based only on the shaded corrections of the attachments). Since the "751F Case" involves correcting the SW temperature and flow to higher values that encompass the entire range of temperatures evaluated in deriving the various correction factors (from test at 65'F to limiting at 75TF), the correction factors shown have been derived through an average of the complete set of correction factors of Attachments K, L and M.

4.6 Application of Analytical Corrections Analytical corrections are applied to the measured process-side inlet temperature for each heat exchanger to r redict the process-side inlet tempera 'ire had the test actually been conducted s under exact license limiting conditions. Parameter measurement uncertainty is applied in the same manner as the corrections for "off-design" conditions.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION c*c 98-119 PEV B PAGE20 OF38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATO(R "t'"l 2/23/99 VFIUMDBY JOBNO.10-296 cTNNEo PROJECT MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program Ivrr Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

5. ASSUMPTIONS 5.1 Data Reduction Assumptions

• Data reduction bias is considered negligible for the heat exchanger thermal performance test and analysis methodologies utilized for the Generic Letter 89-13 program.

5.2 Temperature Measurement Uncertainty Assumptions

• The thermal gradient between surface mounted RTDs and associated pipe due to contact resistance is assumed to be negligible due to removal of all paint from the RTD mounting locations and the application of thermal couplant in accordance with Reference (3).

" The thermal gradient between pipe liner and pipe (where applicable) is assumed to be negligible compared to the other resistance terms due to good surface contact with low contact resistance.

" Process-side piping (air cooling water, lube oil, and jacket water) is assumed to be Schedule 40 carbon steel pipe based on typical application.

" The Service Water System piping in the vicinity of the EDG heat exchangers is lined with 3/16" rubber. The liner thickness is assumed to account for the difference in inside diameters between the 8" Schedule 40 pipe at the location of flow elements FE-6389/6397 [ID = 7.981" per References (23) and (9)] and the flow element specified inside diameter of 7.605" per Reference (14).

" Heat exchanger nozzle wall thickness is assumed to be double the Schedule 40 pipe thickness to conservatively bound the wail heat transfer resistance for the surface mount RTD locations.

" Process-side piping is assumed to have an inside fouling factor of 0.001 consistent with the heat exchanger vendor's design fouling for the shell-side of the heat exchangers.

The service water piping is assumed to have a fouling factor of 0.002 which is four times the vendor specified tube-side fouling factor of 0.0005.

5.3 Test Result Analysis Assumptions 0 Any 'ouling present on the inside or outs. de of tite tubes is assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the heat transfer surfaces.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION C^C No 98-119 _ RvB VAUE 21 OF38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGFATOR^r DA . 2/23/99 vRIMrDr1Y JOBNO.10-296 cuENT NNECo .. 0,)' MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program

,'Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

" Hieat transfer between the heat exchanger and the environment is assumed to be negligible.

" The shell-side fouling factor is 0.001 a Post-cleaning tube-side fouling factor is 0.00000

" The total effective fouling factor (post-cleaning) is 0.001

6. ANALYSIS 6.1 Benchmark Analysis The constant inlet temperature method was used to compare PROTO-HX Version 3.02 to Reference (4) results using the inputs summarized in Section 3.2. Since PROTO-HX converts the input flow (in gpm) to a mass flow (in ibm/hr) referenced to 60°F, the input flow rate required adjustment to get the same mass flow rate as the Reference (4) analysis.

The differences between the current model with PROTO-HX Version 3.02 and the Reference (4) analyses is attributed to the differences in the calculation methodology. The results are deemed close enough to demonstrate a satisfactory benchmarking of the PROTO-HX Version 3.02 models to the analysis of record for the EDG heat exchangers. The difference between the two analyses equates to 5 gpm (from 506 to 511) to maintain the air coolant inlet to X-83A/B less than 134°F.

The results of the comparison to the Reference (4) analysis are included in Attachment A. A 511 gpm case is included for comparison of X-83A/B results with the two flow rates.

6.2 Reduction of Test Data Test data was collected during a thermal performance test of the EDG heat exchangers completed in accordance with test procedure EN 21228 [Reference (3)], The test data sheets (excerpts from EN 21228) and associated operating log sheets are included as Attachment B.

All data was converted to proper engineering units during the data acquisition process with the exception of the service water flow rate. The data acquisitions system recorded the mAmp output of the differential pressure transmitter. Fhe transmitter output was converted to a volumetric flow rate by the equation specified in Section 3.6.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALC NO.98-119 RBV B PAGE 22 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINKI^OR DAT8 2/23/99 VERIFED BY Scott Ingalls JOB NO.10-296 CLMhrINNECo PRO"'I MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program

" Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results Attachment C contains plots of the entire sets of test data for the test in order to show the clear period of steady state performance near the end of the test. The steady state time period was chosen for the analysis since this represented the most stable set of data at the desired service water flow rate. The statistical reduction of the test data is also presented in Attachment C.

The nominal test results are as follows:

As Found Test Results Parameter Average Value AC Tube-Side Flow 257.35 gpm AC Tube-Side Inlet Temp 64.88 OF AC Tube-Side Outlet Temp 80.39 OF AC Shell-Side Inlet Temp 115.52 OF AC Shell-Side Outlet Temp 105.13 0 F LO Shell-Side Inlet Temp 189.06 `F YW Shell-Side Inlet Temp 168.41 OF As Left Test Results Parameter Average Value AC Tube-Side Flow 276.92 gpm AC Tube-Side Inlet Temp 65.27 OF AC Tube-Side Outlet Temp 82.55 OF AC Shell-Side Inlet Temp 118.35 OF AC Shell-Side Outlet Temp 107.76 OF LO Shell-Side Inlet Temp 19i.34 OF JW Shell-Side Inlet Temp 168.91 OF 6.3 Calculation of Measurement Uncertainty 6.3.1 Flow Instrument Bias The instrument bias for the flow measurement loop was evaluated in Attachment Q. At the test service water inlet temperature of 65'F and the test service water flow rate of 257.35 gpm, the flow instrument bias was calculated as 17.04 gpm. At the test service water inlet temperature of 65°F and the test service water flow rate of 276.92 -pm, the flow instrument bias was calculated as 16.82 gpm.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION c'0CNO98-119 Ki B PAGE 23 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT 2/23/99 0 ORIOINATOR*I)

VEKIFIEDBY

,ATO RM NO.10-296 cumr NNECo PRO'cr MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program 71rt1 Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6.3.2 TemperatureInstrument Bias The inputs to the temperature measurement loop are given in Section 3.9. The composite temperature instrument bias is given as the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual contributors per Reference (16). Due to the variation in post-test calibration accuracy, the composite instrument bias is calculated separately for each group of RTDs. The results are illustrated in Attaclhment H.

6.3.3 GradientBias During the test, fluids with temperatures less than the room ambient temperature will tend to have surface mount RTD readings slightly higher than actual due to the temperature gradient across the wall. Likewise, fluids with temperatures greater than the room ambient temperature will tend to have surface mounted RTD readings slightly lower than actual. In both cases, the magnitude of the gradient bias is directly proportional to the magnitude of the temperature difference between the room ambient and the fluid inside the pipe. Quantification of the temperature gradient across the pipe wall for each RTD location is presented in Attachment E.

The results of the analyses are as follows (different ambient temperatures during the tests require separate presentation of results):

Temperature Gradient Bias - As Found Test Location Gradient Bias AC Tube-Side Inlet Temp. -0.583 OF AC Tube-Side Outlet Temp. -0.006 OF AC Shell-Side Inlet Temp. 0.011 OF AC Shell-Side Outlet Temp. 0.008 OF LO Shell-Side Inlet Temp. 0.161 OF JW Shell-Side Inlet Temp. 0.030 OF Temperature Gradient Bias - As Left Test Location Gradient Bias AC Tube-Side Inlet Temp. -0.624 OF AC Tube-Side Outlet Temp. -0.006 OF AC Shell-Side Inlet Temp. 0.01 1 OF AC Shell-Side Outlet Temp. 0.007 OF LO Shell-Side Inlet Temp. 0.159 OF JW Shell-Side Inlet Temp. 0.028 OF

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 HIv B PAGE 24 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINIOR "A"2/23/99 VERFIED ""o-N 10-296 NNECo CLFJ't- ,pRO'r M2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TI.Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6.3.4 Measurement Uncertainty The individual contributors to measurement uncertainty and the derivation of the measurement uncertainty for each measured parameter of interest are summarized in Attachment H. The measurement uncertainty for each parameter is as follows:

As Found Test Measurement Uncertainty Parameter Average Value Measurement Uncertainty AC Tube-Side Flow 257.35 gpm 17._10 gpm AC Tube-Side Inlet Temp 64.88 OF 0.65 OF AC Tube-Side Outlet Temp 80.39 OF 0.40 OF_"

AC Shell-Side Inlet Temp 115.52 OF '2".47 OF AC Shell-Side Outlet Temp 105.13 OF 1.68 OF LO Shell-Side Inlet Temp 189.06 OF 0.45 OF JW Shell-Side Wnlet Temp 168.41 OF 5.09 OF As Left Test Measurement Uncertainty Parameter Average Value Measurement Uncertainty AC Tube-Side Flow 276.92 gpm 17.01 gpm AC Tube-Side Inlet Temp 65.27 OF 0.69 OF AC Tube-Side Outlet Temp 82.55 OF "_0.39 OF AC Shell-Side Inlet Temp 118.35 OF 2._47 OF AC Shell-Side Outlet Temp 107.76 OF 1.71 OF LO Shell-Side Inlet Temp 191.34 OF 0.45 OF JW Shell-Side Inlet Temp 168.91 OF 4.74 OF 6.4 Derivation of Limiting Service Water Flow Rate 6.4.1 Limiting Flowfor 65 TF Iterations were performed with the PROTO-HX model of each heat exchanger. The test service water temperature was taken as 65°F. Tube plugging was based on current plugging levels in accordance with Section 3.3. Fouling factors were in accordance with Section 3.4. Heat loads and shell-side flows were in accordance with Section 3.5.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 RbVB ) 25 OF38 PA" GROTON, CONNECTICUT OIGNATOR* ,)AT2/23/99 VERMFED BY 10-296

.M...

CLIE&r NNECo PROWLMP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program a'rxE Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results The results of the PROTO-HX iterations demonstrated that a service water flow of 263 gpm could maintain all heat exchanger process-side inlet temperatures within limits. The PROTO-HX calculation reports for the final iteration are included in Attachment J. The derived flow rate of 263 gpm, however, is referenced to 601F. This is because PROTO-HX converts flow to mass flow rate Using the fluid density at 60'F. In order to convert the flow to a 65°F flow rate, a ratio based on the difference in density between 60°F and 65°F is required.

The density of saltwater at 60°F is 63.917 lbm/ft [per PROTO-HX properties table]

The density of saltwater at 650 F is 63.884 lbmi/ft3 [per PROTO-HX properties table]

The ratio of the density of saltwater at 60'F to the density of saltwater at 65°F is 1.0005 or approximately 1.0. The design limiting flow rate associated with a service water inlet temperature of 65 0F, therefore, is 263 gpm.

6.4.2 Limiting Flowfor 75 OF Iterations were performed with the PROTO-HX model of each heat exchanger. The limiting service water temperature was taken as 75°F to match the MP2 ultimate heat sink limiting temperature. Tube plugging was based on current plugging levels in accordance with Section 3.3. Fouling factors were in accordance with Section 3.4. Heat loads and shell-side flows were in accordance with Section 3.5.

The results of the PROTO-HX iterations demonstrated that a service water flow of 405 gpm could maintain all heat exchanger process-side inlet temperatures within limits. The PROTO-HX calculation reports for the final iteration are included in Attachment J. The derived flow rate of 405 gpm, however, is referenced to 60'F. This is because PROTO-HX converts flow to mass flow rate using the fluid density at 60°F. In order to convert the flow to a 751F flow rate, a ratio based on the difference in density between 60°F and 75°F is required.

The density of saltwater at 60°F is 63.917 Ibm/ft3' [per PROTO-HX properties table]

The density of saltwater at 75°F is 63.806 lbm/fe [per PROTO-HX properties table]

The ratio of the density of saltwater at 60'F to the density of saltwater at 751F is 1.0017 or approximately 1.0. The design limiting flow rite associated with a service water inlet temperature of 75°F, therefore, is 406 gpm.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CLcNo.98-119 vB PA^jI 26 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORI*^ATOk r ATR 2/23/99 V1IRIEo RY J'ono.10-296 CaNT NNECo PRoj.r MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TrrL Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6.5 Derivation of Analytical Corrections Two separate corrections were made to bound the available margin as follows:

• correction to the test temperature of 65°F and the associated flow established as the limiting design condition for that temperature (i.e., 263 gpm);

• correction to the test temperature of 75'F and the associated flow established as the limiting design condition for that temperature (i.e., 406 gpm).

These corrections are developed in the subsections that follow.

6.5.1 65 TF Limiting Case 6.5.1.1 Off-Design Conditions Requiring Correction The following is a summary of the key thermal performance parameters for the EDG heat exchangers along with the conditions that existed during the thermal performance tests.

Design Test Required Impact on Process-Side Parameter Value Value(l) Correction Inlet Temperature As-Found Test Service Water Inlet Temperature (°F) 65 64.2 0.8 correction will increase Service Water Flow (gpm) 263 274.5 11.5(2) correction will increase Ambient Air Temperature (*F) 85 61 24M correction will increase EDG Electrical Load (kW) 2750 2750 0 no correction required As-Left Test Service Water Inlet Temperature (*F) 65 64.6 0.4 correction will increase Service Water Flow (gpm) 263 293.9 30.9(2) correction will increase Ambient Air Temperature (0 F) 85 62 23(3) correction will increase EDG Electrical Load (kW) 1 2750 2750 0 no correction required Notes:

(I) Includes applicable measurement uncertainty subtracted from SW temperature and added to SW flow.

(2) Correction shown as positive since the result will be an increase in the tube-side outlet and shell-side inlet temps.

(3) A 13.91% AC heat load eorrcction is applied to conservativcly account for the lower ambient temperature (see Attachment I)

Corrections are required that can equate the "off-d ;ign" conditions to corresponding increases in the process-side inlet temperatures of each heat exchanger. Development of the necessary corrections is broken down by heat exchanger in the subsections that follow.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO 98-119 REV B P*EoF 27 OF38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT OkHIINATOR *OAE 2/23/99 VEMmD BY Scott Ingalls "'BNO 10-296 CLEN NNECo PROJECT MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program Iht" Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6.5.1,2 AC Corrections The following tables calculate and summarize the corrections required for the AC (AC) heat exchangers. Attachment K contains the derivations of the correction factors for the AC heat exchangers. The correction to the AC service water outlet is necessary to account for necessary corrections to lube oil cooler service water inlet.

AC Tube Outlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 0.8 0F I1.000F/ 0 F 0.8000 F SW Flow 11.5 gpm 0.048*F/gpm 0.552 0 F Heat Load 13.91% 0.156 0 F/% 2.1700 F Total Correction: 3.522-F AC Tube Outlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 0.4 0F 1.000°F/°F 0.400°F SW Flow 30.9 gpm 0.048 0F/gp.m 1.483 0 F Heat Load 13.91% 0.156 0 F/% 2.1700 F Total Correction: 4.0530 F AC Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 0.8 0 F 0.819°F/°F 0.655°F SW Flow 11.5 gpm 0.072°F/gpm 0.8zS0 F Heat Load 13.91% 0.647 0 F/% 9.000OF Total Correction: 10.483°F AC Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 0.4 0 F 0.819 0F/OF 0.328 0 F SW Flow 30.9 gpm 0.072°F/gpm 2.225OF Heat Load 13.91% 0.6470F/% 9.000 0 F Total Correction: 11.553 0F

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 kAv B ^'rI- 28 OF 38 0 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGIATOR VERIFIEDYB OATE JOBNO.

2/23/99 10-296 CLele NNECo PRO120L MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program

'u" Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6.5.1.3 Lube Oil Cooler Corrections The following tables calculate and summarize the corrections required for the Lube Oil (LO) heat exchangers. Attachment L contains the derivations of the correction factors for the LO heat exchangers. The correction to the LO service water outlet is necessary to account for necessary corrections to Jacket Water heat exchanger service water inlet.

LO Tube Outlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter .Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 3.522°F 0.999 0 F/°F 3.518WF SW Flow 11.5 gpm 0.101°F/gpm 1.162 0F Total Correction: 4.680 0 F LO Tube Outlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 4.053°F 0.9990F/QF 4.049OF OF 30.9 gpm 0. 101°F/gpm 3.121OF Total Correction: 7.170°F LO Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 3.522°F 0.480WF/°F 1.691 0 F SW Flow 11.5 gpm 0.069 0 F/gpm 0.794 0 F Total Correction: 2.485°F LO Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 4.053"F 0.480°F/OF 1.9450 F SW Flow 30.9 gpm 0.069'F/gpm 2.132OF Total Correction: 4.077°F 0

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALC.No 98-119 RLv B ,'A(,29 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORiGNATOR DATE 2/23/99 VEIFIED BY ONO.10-296

('LIN NNECo PROJECT M P2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TITL Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6.5.1.4 Jacket Water Cooler Corrections The following tables calculate and summarize the corrections required for the Jacket Water (JW) heat exchangers. Attachment M contains the derivations of the correction factors for the JW heat exchangers. There is no correction necessary for JW service water outlet temperature since it is the last heat exchanger in the series. However, the temperature increase of the service water caused by the LO heat exchanger is accounted for here.

JW Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 4.680OF 0.838OF/OF 3.922,F SW Flow 11.5 gpm 0.172°F/gpm 1.978OF Total Correction: 5.900°F 0 JW Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 7.170°F 0.838 0 F/OF 6.0080 F SW Flow 30.9 gpm 0.172°F/gpm 5.315"F Total Correction: 11.323 0F

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION C^ANo.98-119 REvB PACJC 30 oF38 0 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIflATO**

V').RIEfBY Scott Ingalls Art JOBNO, 2/23/99 10-296 cl,.Ir NNENCo P1oJECT MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program

• r- Analysis of Mp2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6,5.2 75 TF Limiting Case 6.5.2.1 Off-Design Conditions Requiring Correction The following is a summary of the key thermal performance parameters for the EDG heat exchangers along with the conditions that existed during the thermal performance test.

As-Found Test Design Test Required Impact on Process-Side Parameter Value Value(1 ) Correction Inlet Temperature Service Water Inlet Temperature (*F) 75 64.2 10.8 correction will increase Service Water Flow (gpm) 406 274.5 -131.5(2) correction will increase Ambient Air Temperature ('F) 1 85 61 24(3) correction will increase EDG Electrical Load (kW) 2750 2750 0 no correction required 0 Notes:

(1) Includes applicable measurement uncertainty subtracted from SW temperature and added to SW flow.

(2) Correction shown as positive since the result will he an increase in the tube-side outlet and shell-side inlet temps.

(3) A 13.91% AC heat load correction is applied to conservatively account fbr the lower ambient temperature (see Attachment I)

As-Left Test Design Test Required Impact on Process-Side Parameter (Cont'd) Value Value(l) Correction Inlet Temperature Service Water Inlet Temperature (fF) 75 64.6 10.4 correction will increase Service Water Flow (gpm) 406 293.9 -112.1(72) correction will increase Ambient Air Temperature (°F) 85 62 2(3T-1 correction will increase EDG Electrical Load (kW) 2750 2750 0 no correction required Notes:

(I) Includes applicable measurement uncertainty subtracted from SW temperature and added to SW flow.

(2) Correction shown as positive since the result will be an increase in the tube-side outlet and shell-side inlet temps.

(3) A 13.91% AC heat load correction is applied to conservatively account for the lower ambient temperature (see Attachment I)

Correction factors are required that can equate the "off-design" conditions to corresponding increases in the process-side inlet temperatures of each heat exchanger. Development of the necessary corrections is broken down be heat exchanger in the subsections that follow.

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNo 98-119 IM B PAGH 31 Op 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT DAoT2/23/99 0 ORJGoATORý VERIFIMffY 10-296 JIOBNO.

CraE' NNECo PROjEc' MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TTtAnalysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6.5.2.2 AC Corrections The following tables calculate and summarize the corrections required for the AC (AC) heat exchangers. Attachment K contains the derivations of the correction factors for the AC heat exchangers. The correction to the AC service water outlet is necessary to account for necessary corrections to lube oil cooler service water inlet.

AC Tube Outlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 10.8 0F l.000°F/`F 10.800OF SW Flow -131.5 gpm 0.040°F/gpm -5.260 0 F Heat Load 13.91% 0.156 0 F/% 2.170°F Total Correction: 7.710 0 F AC Tube Outlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 10.4 0F 1.000°F/OF 10.400 0 F SW Flow -112.1 gpm 0.040.F/gpm -4.484°F Heat Load 13.91% ' 0.156 0 F/% 2.1700 F Total Correction: 8.086 0F AC Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 10.8 0F 0.839 0 F/OF 9.061°F SW Flow - 131.5 gpm 0.060°F/gpm -7.8(,3IF Heat Load 13.91% 0.647 0F/% 9.000°F Total Correction: 10.171 0 F AC Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction 10.4 0F 0 0.839 F/aF 8.7260 F SW Inlet Temp.

SW Flow -112.1 gpm 0.060 0F/gpm -6.726°F Heat Load 13.91% 0.647 0F/% 9.000 0 F Total Correction: 11.000°F

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 R vB PAGE 32 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT OR1GINATOR DATF 2/23/99 VIURM[EDR Y J*B NO.10-296

(:,,INT NNECo PRoJ*cl MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program T11-. Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6.5.2.3 Lube Oil Cooler Corrections The following tables calculate and summarize the corrections required for the Lube Oil (LO) heat exchangers. Attachment L contains the derivations of the correction factors for the LO heat exchangers. The correction to the LO service water outlet is necessary to account for necessary corrections to Jacket Water heat exchanger service water inlet.

LO Tube Outlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 7.71 0°F 0.999 0 F/OF 7.702°F SW Flow -131.5 gpm 0.084'F/gpm -11.046 0F Total Correction: -3.344°F LO Tube Outlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 8.086°F 0.999 0 F/°F 8.0780 F SW Flow -112.1 gpm 0.084°F/gpm -9.416°F Total Correction: -1.338 0 F LO Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 7.710°F 0.5000 F/°F 3.8550 F SW Flow j.-131.5 gpm 0.056°F/gpm -7.3640 F Total Correction: -3.509°F LO Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. 8.0860 F 0.500°F/°F 4.043OF SW Flow -112.1 gpm o.056'F/gpm -6.278OF Total Correction: -2.23 5°F

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO. 98_119 jREv B PAGE33 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT OIUGINATOR DATE 2/23/99 V'ERImFIEy JOBNO.10-296 CL'NNECo . Roc MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results 6.5.2.4 Jacket Water Cooler Corrections The following tables calculate and summarize the corrections required for the Jacket Water (JW) heat exchangers. Attachment M contains the derivations of the correction factors for the JW heat exchangers. There is no correction necessary for JW service water outlet temperature since it is the last heat exchanger in the series. However, the temperature increase of the service water caused by the LO heat exchanger is accounted for here.

JW Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Found Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp, -3.344OF 0.848°F/°F -2.836OF SW Fow -131.5 gpm 0.143.F/gpm -18.804°F Total Correction: -21.6400 F JW Shell Inlet Temperature Corrections - As Left Test Off-Design Parameter Required Correction Correction Factor Correction SW Inlet Temp. -1.338°F 0.848 0F/OF -1.135°F SW Flow -112.1 gpm 0.143*F/gpm -16.0300 F Total Correction: -17.165°F s

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO 98-119 REVB PAGB 34 ` 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIG*NATOR DATE 2/23/99 VERIFIEDBY J*i NO.10-296 CLIENr NNECo PROJECT MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program 1nTAPAnalysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

7. RESULTS 7.1 65°F Limiting Case As Found Test Correction Parameter Test Uncertainty Correction* Final Acceptance Margin AC Shell Inlet 115.5°F 2.5 0 F 10.5 0 F 128.5 0F 134.00 F 5.5 0F LO Shell Inlet 189. I0 F 0.5 0 F 2.5°F 192.1 OF 230.0OF 37.9 0 F JW Shell Inlet 168.4 0 F 5.10 F 5.90F 179.4 0 F 200.0OF 20.6 0 F

• Rounded up to the nearest tenth of a degree.

As Left Test Correction Parameter Test Uncertainty Correction* Final Acceptance Margin AC Shell Inlet 118.4°F 2.5°F 11.6 0 F 132.5 0 F 134.0OF 1.50 F LO Shell Inlet 191.3 0F 0.5 0F 4.1OF 195.9 0 F 230.0°F 34.1"F YW Shell Inlet 168.9°F 4.7 0 F I 1.40 F 185.0 0F1 200.0OF 15.0 0 F

• Rounded up to the nearest tenth of a degree.

7.2 75°F Limiting Case As Found Test Correction Parameter Test Uncertainty Correctiop* Final Acceptance Margin AC Shell Inlet 115.5 0 F 2.5 0 F 10.2 0 F 128.20 F 134.0°F 5.80F LO Shell Inlet 189.1'F 0,5 0F -3.50 F 186.1 0 F 230.0 0F 43,9 0 F JW Shell Inlet 168.4'F 5.10 F -21.6 0F 151.9 0 F 200.0 0F 48.1°F

• Rounded up to the nearest tenth of a degree. Negative numbers are rounded down (absolute value decreased).

As Left Test Correction Parameter Test Uncertainty Correction* Final Acceptance Margin AC Shell Inlet 11"8.4'F 2.5 0 F 11.0 0F 131.9 0 F 134.0°F 2.1 0 F 0.5 0F 189.6 0F 230.0 0F 40.4 0 F 0 LO Shell Inlet JW Shell Inlet 191.3'F 168.9 0 F 4.7 0 F

-2.2 F

-17.-1F 156.5 0F 200.O°F 43.50F

• Rounded up to the nearest tenth of a degree. Negative numbers are rounded down (absolute value decreased).

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 =.V B PAGB 35 OF 38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIUINATOCR DA:"' 2/23/99 VERIFIE BY JOBNO.10-296 WENT NNECo 1RoJ0cr MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TITL' Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

8. CONCLUSIONS The data from two separate heat exchanger tests were analyzed to determine if the heat exchangers were performing within required thermal limits. One set of test data was obtained prior to a tube-side cleaning, and one set was obtained following the cleaning. Each set of test data was conservatively analyzed and compared to two different limiting conditions: limiting conditions corresponding to the approximate service water temperature during the test (i.e. 65*F) and also limiting conditions corresponding to the maximum allowed service water temperature (i.e. 75°F).

The results of the analysis for each set of test data (as-found and as-left) showed that the MP2 EDG heat cxchangers contained thermal margin when compared to the licensed limiting conditions. This is evident by the presence of temperature margin between the corrected shell inlet temperatures when compared to the maximum acceptable shell inlet temperatures.

The results were different for the corrections to the 65*F case and the 75°F case. The 65*F case resulted in the least amount of temperature margin for the heat exchangers with the JW heat exchanger showing the most significant difference. By correcting the data to the 75 0F limiting conditions, the JW shell-side inlet temperature margin increased by 133% for the as-found test and 188% for the as-left test. This is likely due to the low SW flows during the test and the large performance reduction correction required for the 65'F case "off design" flow rate.

The results were also different for the as-found and as-left tests with the as-found test showing the greatest margin, This is not what was expected but is reasonable given the flow rate uncertainty as illustrated in Attachment 0.

Specific conclusion which can be drawn from these tests and the supporting analyses irrIude:

• The Air Coolant heat exchanger (AC) is the most thermally limiting heat exchanger for both the 65'.F and 75'F limiting cases and defines the associated minimum required service water flow.

" The Air Coolant heat exchanger (AC) appears to have had 100% shell-side flow through the heat exchanger with 0% bypass flow for both tests. This is evident in the step increases in air coolant temperature coinciding with the step decreases in service water flow.

" The Lube Oil Cooler (LO) has substantial thermal margin for both cases and does not appear to be limiting,

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 RhV.B PA( P 36 OF38 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR

• DATR 2/23/99 VEIFDBV I "o 10-296 craN NNECo PRO"fl-I MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program n'TAnalysis of MPi2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

" The Lube Oil Cooler (LO) appears to have had 100% shell-side flow through the heat exchanger with 0% bypass flow for both tests. This is evident in the steady increases in lube oil temperature with each successive decrease in service water flow.

• The Jacket Water Cooler (JW) is sensitive to low service water flow conditions and the corrections required for the 65°F limiting case.

" The Jacket Water Cooler (JW) appears to have had significant bypass flow for both tests.

This is evident in the steady jacket water temperature with each successive decrease in service water flow. It appears that the amount of flow to the heat exchanger increased with each successive decrease in the service water flow to maintain jacket water temperature constant. This supports the conclusions of the analytical corrections that the jacket water cooler has substantial thermal margin.

• A tube-side cleaning interval of at least once every 7 months appears to be adequate for maintaining the MP2 EDG heat exchangers within thermal performance limits, and further performance testing may show that a lower frequency (longer interval) would also be acceptable.

Recommendations for future testing include the following:

• Testing should focus on achieving temperature and flow conditions which are closer to the maximum SW temperature of 75°F and the corresponding limiting flow rate (which in this case was 406 gpm based on tube plugging levels at the time of the test).

" More effort should be placed into quantifying the AC heat load with a higher degree of certainty. The following instrumentation changes should be considered:

Move air coolant outlet temperature measurement location downstream of the bypass recombination to get a combined temperature returning to the air cooler (more mixing of the fluid leaving tL. heat exchanger will lead to less thermal stratification and will improve the accuracy of the measurement. Since the bypass is practically closed, the same measurement will be achieved).

Air coolant flow rate with ultrasonic flow meter. The bypass flow measurement can be replaced by a total flow to/from the air cooler. This will provide a means of assessing the true heat balance on the cooler and provide a better means of evaluating the heat load on the cooler.

" The number of temperature measurement locations can be reduced to the following parameters with the corresponding number of RTDs indicated:

> AC tube inlet (4)

> AC tube outlet (6)

> AC shell inlet (4)

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION c~98c~1o.9rv CACNO..98119 RPB P^OE 37 OF 38 0 GROTON, CONNECTICUT OmGrNATOR VERIJFED BY Lloyd Philpot DATE 1JOB 2/23/99 NO.10-296 CL*Er NNECo PROX-CTMP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

• AC shell outlet (6)

) LO shell inlet (4)

> JW shell inlet (4)

Temperature measurement at the tube-side and shell-side outlets of the lube oil and jacket water coolers are unnecessary since they are highly stratified and/or are not useful to the analysis method presented in this calculation.

9. REFERENCES

1. Generic letter (GL) 89-13, "Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment", 7/18/89.

2. Generic Letter (GL) 89-13, Supplement 1, "Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment", 4/4/90.

3. EN 21228, Revision 0. (Attachment B)

4. Proto-Power Calculation 92-135, "Minimum Required SWS Cooling Flow For EDG Heat Exchangers based on an SWS Inlet Temp of 757F - 2750 kW - Tubes Plugged: 10 Air Clr / 19 Oil Clr / 11 Jacket Clr," Revision - (original), dated 11/18/92.

5. Memo TS-95-728 dated 10/3/95. (Attachment N)

6. MP2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Change dated June 1998.

7. P&ID 25203-26008 SH 2 of 4, Rev. 55.

8. 7604-MS-3 Sheet 1 of 1, Pipe Class JGD, Piping 2 1/2" through 10" is Schedule 40, carbon steel, lined.

9. CRANE Technical Paper No, 410, Appendix B, Pipe Data.

10. Drawing 25203-20070, Revision 8

11. PDCR 2-43-93, Rev. 1, "Service Water Pipe Replacement - Phase 5."

PROTO-POWER CORPORATION CALCNO.98-119 R" B PAGE 38 O138 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORnGhIATOR DATE 2/23/99 VINFI*O BY JOBNO.10-296 C¶rWNNECo ,RoJE," MP2 GL 89-13 Heat Exchanger Testing Program TITLn Analysis of MP2 EDG Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Test Results

12. P&ID 25203-26018 SH 2 and 3 of 5, Rev. 10 and 9.

13. E. C. Guyer, D. L. Brownell, "Handbook of Applied Thermal Design," McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1989.

14. Proto-Power Calculation 97-121, "MP2 Emergency Diesel Generator Service Water Flow Loop Accuracy Calculation (FE-6389/FE-6397).

15. Memo TS2-99-048 dated February 19, 1999

16. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.1-1985, Measurement Uncertainty, Part 1: Instruments and Apparatus.

17 Proto-Power Calculation 93-057, Rev. A, "Fluid Properties - Mobilguard 450 Lube Oil -

Range 32degF to 300degF," 8/18/94 18 Proto-Power Calculation 96-069, Rev. - (original), "Fluid Properties - Moist Air - Range 8degF to 300degF," 12/2/96 19 Proto-Power Calculation 93-049, Rev. A, "Fluid Properties - Salt Water - Range 32degF to 320degF - Salinity 35g/kg," 8/18/94.

20 Proto-Power Calculation 93-048, Rev. A, "Fluid Properties - Fresh Water - Range 32degF to 500degF," 8/18/94.

21. ASME OM Part 21, "Inservice Performance Testing of Heat Exchangers in LWR Plants.

22. N. Stambaugh, W. Closser, F. Mollerus: EPRI NP-75 52, "Heat Exchanger Performance Monitoring Guidelines", December 1991.

23. Drawing 25203-20183, Revision 4, dated 7/93.

24. EPRI Report TR 109634, Flow Meter Guideline

Serial No 13-438 Docket No. 50-336 Attachment 3 Excerpt From DNC Calculation 94-DES-1111-M2 Revision 00 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

Millstone Power Station Unit 2

CALCULATION TITLE PAGE Total Numiber of Pages: 94: 76 WP2 SWS Maxinmum Allowable SWS Temperature to the EDG Heat Exchangers @ 1800KW and 2750 KW Electrical Load Levels with 5% Tubes Plumied in each Unit Assuniinz 501 GPM n* 2750 KW and 265 *nm rCaIl0 KCW TITLE, 94-DES-I 11 I-M2 00 Service Water System CALCULATION No. Revision No. System Name Proto Power 94-053 N/A 2326A MSC VENDOR CALCULATION No. Structure System Number Component NUCLEAR INDICATOR: Safety Evaluation or Screen CneI. Supports Calc. Supports CAT -IRWQA FSBOQ Attached DCRIMMOD? Other Process? C EIATWSQA [-INON-QA [-NO ]YES ONO EWES ONO D-IFPQA INCORPORATES:

CCN NO: AGAINST REV. DCRIMMOD No, Reference MI.xec-utive Summary The purpose of this calculation is to predict the perfonnance of the EDG heat exchangers based on the available flow of 507 gpm determined from the hydratulic analysis. This performance is predicted to ensure that the service water at a maximum inlet temperature of 77 F is capable of removing the heat necessary to maintain the EDG below the maximum temperature limits. Calculation 94-DES-1 107M2 is the design basis calculation which predicts the perfornance if 10% of the tubes are plugged in dte three heat exchangers with the Service Water inlet temperature at the maximum limit of 75F. 'This calculation is only a study which predicts the perfornance of the three heat exchangers with maximum Service Water temperature of 77F if only 5% of the tubes plugged.

This calculation was prepared under Proto-Power's QA program as Proto Power Calculation 94-053 and is being entered into Passport for the first time.

Approvals (Print & Sign Name)

Preparer: Prasad Date: 61? eq I hiterdiscipline Reviewer: Discipline: Date:

Interdiscipline Reviewer : Discipline: Date:

Independent Reviewer: Date: r/1t C/

supervisor: Date: 7 -

I~nstallation Verification  !*

H C] Calculation rep~resents the ýInsta~lled figurationýand ap'proved ý sing cnion(Calculation of Record)

R] NIA does not affect plant configuration (e.g., study, 'H Preparer/Designer Engineer: (Print and Sign)* Date; 7 /9P 19 REC'DZ7 DCM FORM 5-1A Rev, 6 Cli: 10 Page 1 of 1 1*

"'I '*

c= No.94-053 - ph= 1 or 27 PROTO-POWER CORPORATION oUGMXZR P= AUG 10, 1994 GROTON, CONNECTICUT REMMfIM - . 77115165

= NORTHEAST UTILITIES _"" MP2 SWS MP2 SWS-Maximum Allowable SWS Temperature to the EDG Heat Exchangers @ 1800 KW and 2750 KW Electrical Load Levels With 5% Tubes Plugged in each Unit (5, 10, and 5 Tubes Respectively) Assuming 525 GPM @ 2750 KW and 265 GPM @ 1800 KW 1.-0 PURPOSE The purpose of this calculation is to establish the maximum acceptable Service Water temperature to the Millstone Point Unit 2 (MP2) Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) heat exchangers that will provide the required heat removal for each of the three EDG heat exchangers for electrical loading conditions of 1800 KW1 and 2750 KWI, both with five percent of the tubes mechanically plugged in each heat exchanger 2 . The EDG vendor has provided, via Attachments (A) and (B), the estimated heat removal requirements for the subject heat exchangers for EDG electrical loadings of 1650 KW and 2750 KW, respectively. The heat loads on the design data sheets, Attachment (C), reflect an electrical loading of 3250 KW.

2.0 BACKGROUND

In support of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Generic Letter 89-13 requirements, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) has reviewed the operation and design of the MP2 Service Water System (SWS). The design review was conducted in 1992, and was completed in December of 1992 based on a maximum intake temperature of 750F. The required cooling flows to the system heat exchangers were calculated assuming that 10% of the heat exchanger tubes were plugged in each of the safety-related heat exchangers, including the three EDG heat exchangers. Since less than 5% of the heat exchanger tubes are actually plugged in any of the safety-related heat exchangers, it is known that the required heat transfer can be achieved at temperatures in excess of 750F. Since the intake temperature may exceed 75*F at some time during the months of July and August, Proto-Power was requested to establish the maximum allowable intake temperature for the EDG heat exchangers assuming only 5% of the heat transfer tubes are plugged and

'Electrical loading requirement for the Loss-of-Normal-Power condition (Non-LOCA Case).

2Maximum continuous rating of the Emergency Diesel Generator.

Most of this capacity is required to support a LOCA event 3The Air Cooler heat exchanger and Jacket Water heat exchanger each have 110 tubes by design. For the purposes of this calculation, it is assumed that five tubes are mechanically plugged in each of these two units. The Oil Cooler heat exchanger has 188 tubes by design. For the purposes of this calculation, it is assumed that 9 tubes are mechanically plugged in each of these two units.

1PA 02 PROTO-POWER CORPORATION GROTON, CONNECTICUT cut NO.94-053 ORIYMATR -m I 27 AUG 10, 1994

. 77115165

'T NORTHEAST UTILITIES I3 MP2 SWS 8oc IMP2 SWS-Maximum Allowable SWS Temperature to the EDG Heat Exchangers @ 1800 KW and 2750 KW Electrical Load Levels With 5% Tubes Plugged in each Unit (5, 10, and 5 Tubes Respectively) Assuming 525 GPM e 2750 KW and 265 GPM @ 1800 KW that the beat exchangers receive the required flows established by the 1992 design basis analysis for 10% tube pluggage. The subsequent system balancing was performed based on required flows for 10% tube pluggage.

Testing has confirmed that the safety-related heat exchangers receive at least 10% more cooling flow than is required.

3.0 APPROACH The. required heatl.oads: for..each.of..;the. .three heat aexhangers was provided by the.vendor, Coltecr,for.:electrical l"8oadingsf1650 .KW( and.:2750 KW. The design data sheets.:for. the. EDG heat "exchangers"were"based "on an electrical loadng of: 3250 KW. The heat loads for the three heat exchangers were plotted versus the electrical loading to estimate the heat load for the 1800 KW load condition. Attachment (H) contains the subject plots. It can be seen from the Attachment (H) plots that linear interpolation provides a conservative heat load estimate as opposed to the heat load estimate that, would be generated from a polynomial curve fit of the heat load data points. The resulting heat load values for an EDG electrical load of 1800 KW, which are subsequently used in this calculation, are as follows:

Heat Load Table 1800 KW Heat Transfer - Required Q Unit J (MBtu/Hr)

Air Cooler 1.6874 Lube Oil Cooler 2.0985 Jacket Water Cooler 1.8600 The heat loads for the 2750 KW case, provided in Attachment (B), are summarized below:

Heat Load Table 2750 KW Heat unit Transfer I 4 (MBtu/Hr) Q Required Air Cooler 2 606701:

2.279 i tLUbe Oil Cooler Jack~et Water Cooler 2.823

EDG Air Cooler Heat Load vs. KW Rank I Eqn 49 Ity=a+bx 3 i2=0.997691817 DF AdJ r2=0.9951B3236 FftStdEn--0.0399703572 Fstat--414,216432 a=0.88106619 bkr8.701220e.12 2.11-- - - -I - I - - - - - / 1 Z

2. 04- -

98-----

92-----------

86 -- - - - -

1.8-- - - -

0 Q, 1 74 - -- -,- - - - - -

( X4 622 . - . ...

.56- -

IDUU 1 i*1 109 LU.&U "Ou e.0"w 00 IgO' EDG KW Loading Rink I Eqn 49 l1ymalbx r2 Coef De. DF Adj f2 Fit Std Err F-.V" 0.9975916175 0.9951832349 0.0399703572 414.21643164 Farm Value Std Efrf t-ulue 90% Confidence Limits

' 0.661065190 0.014400724 45.87950916 0.569635220 0.752495161 b -8.7012e-12 4.74382e-13 -183422298 -1.1711.41 .5.691 ie-12

.4 PRTaOERCC OLIA'5 ATrACHMENT tf REV. .- PAGE O If

K ,-," A C *" : .1 t .. AZ T" ' ' "

A';TAC1'IMI*NT .. .:

u, Coll'c Industries REV. -" PAGE OF IS 6 or No. 6 IPACE:

ENGINEERING REPORT' Fairbanks Motse Engine Division Dn ICO.-t-91 v=c tAiu-Sio.4cf - -AEA17 Ey-cAAketcýER IPC:PJFoR"t4C.E by - d.E .E PROVED, ST

.I Restwx5l -pmt-r. *a). MAL'j'tlcoL iALAAS(ýELAZ, ~ t~~ 7 4p'l/mink

• Aw.z*b* ~rod us

-. -cm

. ' ... V0.t./'*

.'U * . -'M . .C r,... . ...- t /.`, r.,.. .. F...

.-'5"i'm

, * *t.

".5'JCS V. ..- b'.

,r:

4 Lr,4-Ls.E.* ,%i=* .*

e"_o 4' Ihoi ...

• rt.y'-mke.s:.

Z-16 F.

1. 002.

-. ,,,7OOt .*

A

~~ YC I

37 6S Coe~ob Jxo~pm-c

/InM*.ý-

P2ACTstiC.\ j 64lo"rOJA (32z~ds kl-4%n4-E fA4

" -r;-.-,TpRE ,fA,.;

4

-I.TEZCM C? V4{o' 4 COk 'OF rS jC- 0$7 Tq-F- LE*)

J"4tb -Tr-e V~\,, t 4frCS M9L RMNeI-Ey -ftý9CPTdrJE bJE -ro -r.\- SL4EIZ.

I It, lEmp1APET.RRE oisT oF -rAF t W. 1,.CRCCOLER

Serial No 13-438 Docket No. 50-336 Attachment 4 Excerpt From DNC Calculation 94-DES-1111-M2 Revision 00, Change I Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

Millstone Power Station Unit 2

TOTAL PAGES: 9 All CALCULATION CHANGE NOTICE (CCN)

PAGE 1 CH V#9 AFFECTED CALCULATION/PLANT 1 NMPI [ MP2 E MP3 E, GENERAL CALCULATION NO. REVISION NO. CHANGE NO. CALCULATIOfN ORIGINATED BY:

94-DES-lllI-M2 00 19 NU [I VENDOR CALCULATION TITLE MP2 SWS Maximum Allowable SWS Temperature to tie EDG Heat Exchangers @ 1800KW and 2750 KW Electrical Load Levels with 5% Tubes Plug ged in each Unit Assuming 507 GPM ( 2750 KW and 265 gpmC () 1800 KW.

REFERENCE Safety Evaluation or CCN Supports CCN Supports Other CH

1. Proto Power calc 91- Screen Attached DCR/MMOD? Process? #10 120, Rev 01 [DYES ONO []YES ONO IODYES ONO

2. Z2ERC 25203-ER 0181 DCRIMMOD:

Reference:

REASON FOR CHANGE This change notice is issued to recalculate the heat exchanger performance using the Service Water flow of 507 gpm determined in the hydraulic analysis, calculation 91-120 (Reference 1) after accounting for model uncertainties.

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE & TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION

1. Revise the title of the calculation to read "507 gpm @ 2750 KW" instead of "525 gpm @ 2750 KW"

2. Recalculate the perfornance of the heat exchangers using a service water flow of 507 gpin instead of 525 gpm. The affected pages of the calculation are attached to this CCN. The recalculated performance of the heat exchangers for the Lube oil cooler and Jacket Water cooler show thlt the required heat removal is achieved with a service water flow of 507 gpm. The heat removal required for the Air Cooler is slightly shy of 2.0670 MBtu/hr by 0.0011 MIBtuih. This relates to an increase in the air cooler fresh water outlet temperature by a tenth of a degree above the max limit of 134 F. This change is insignificant, The design basis conditions for analysis of the EDG coolers is 75 F service water with 10% tube plugging as per calculations92-135 and 92-125. In actuality, Reference 2 shows that the lube oil coolers (X53A/B) and the air cooler heat exchangers (Xg3A/B) currently have no tubes plugged.

Reference 4 also indicates that the jacket water heat exchangers (X45A/B) have less than 1% of the tubes plugged (1 out of 188 tubes) in each heat exchanger. Therefore, these heat exchangers will perform as intended, maintaining the temperatures well within the limits during the postulated Loss of Normal Power coincident with a LOCA.

3. Since this is a "what if study" of the EDG heat exchanger performance, a SE screening is not required.

NUCLEAR INDICATOR AFFECTED CALC PAGES 0 CAT I [] RWQA ["1SBOQA 20 to 25

.0 FPQA 0 ATWSQA Ql NON-qA Approvalm (Print & Sign Name) ____________

Preparer: Date:

Interdisciplhle Reviewer: Discipline: Date:

Interdiscipline Reviewer:. Discipline: Date:

Independent Reviewer Date: 7 Supevis M jDate:

Installation V erflfiestion /'1 *' '

07 Calculation represents the installed configuration a= poe lenlg condition (C oRerd CII 10

[ N/A does not affect Preparer/Dcsl plant configuration gnEnginer: (rint and S study, yVpthetica1jn"*jj (e.g., Sign)ytht ^Sjoae Date: /-'F' If applicable:

Superseded by Rev. CCN Preparer/Design Engineer'. (Print and SMIp'n j qi ? Date:

ON HOLD DCM FORM 5-5A CDS CDS QC !,j: Rev. 06 Ch 10 Page 1 of I NRP_ 0//,

cc4/dv l to P 9*

,FU2A~)

CM* N.94-053 p= 20 or 27 PA-PROTO-POWER CORPORATION Oaoo AUG 10, 1994 GROTON, CONNECTICUT i 77115165 a'"" NORTHEAST UTILITIES 7 MP2 SWS MP2 SWS-Maximum Allowable SWS Temperature to the EDG Heat Exchangers 0 1800 KW and 2750 KW Eleotrical Load Levels With 5% Tubes Plugged in each unit (5, 10, and 5 Tubes Respectively) Assuming*5D GPM @ 2750 KW and 265 GPM @ 1800 KWi PHIsubS .915687 Jtotal .443590 Ideal Ho (Metric) 13611.61 (W/m2 -OK)

Ideal Ho (English) 2397.004 (BTU/hr-ft 2 -OF)

Actual Ho (English) 1063.288 (BTU/hr-ft%-°F)

Tube-Side Performance Data MdotTube 135580 Tube-side mass flowrate (lbm/hr).

VelTube 2.-44-9 Cad- Fluid Velocity (ft/sea).

PRTube 4.271813 Prandtl No.

A RETube 18503.25 Reynold's No.

ETA 2.664481E-02 CK1 1.090592 CK2 12.80934 Numerator 263.2589 Denominator 2.297588 NusseltNum 114.5805 Hi 773.7714' Tube-Side Coef. (BTU/hr-ft 2 -OF)

Overall Performance Data U 245.2361 (BTU/hr-fta-*F)

Heat Transferred 2149331 (BTU/hr)

Log Mean Delta T 54.4865 (OF)2 Effective Area 160.853 (ft )

Tube-side Flow Area .243451 (ft2)

Shell Temp In 175 (OF)

Shell Tamp Out 164.232 (OF)

Tube Temp In 106.809 ('F)

Tube Tamp Out 123.348 (Or) 4.2 2750 KW CASE The Service Water flowrate used for this case was (5jYGPM which was calculated in Reference (5). The Service Water inlet temperature, I

7 F Qý j was obtained from numerous iteratipnu, the last of which is shown below. This temperature was limited by the heat transfer requirements of the Air Cooler Beat Exchanger. The heat transfer requiremensfor the subsequent two heat exchangers were exceeded when(j bGPMx 7j7.15 was delivered to the Air Cooler heat exchanger. --

CC1AJ 01

Ce-A/O~ 9 ~r/'-2

.C 4 eo~e 0" Ro.94-053 1 V - 21 or 27 PROTO-POWER CORPORATION 10, 1994.AUG GROTON,CONNECTICUTR

= NORTHEAST UTILITIES 1 P MP2 SWS MP2 SWS-Maximum Allowable SWS Temperature to the EDG Heat Exchangers @ 1800 KW and 2750 KW Electrical Load Levels With 5% Tubes Plugged in each Unit (5, 10, and 5 Tubes Respectively) Assuming 525 GPM 6 2750 KW and 265 GPM @ 1800 KW 4.2.1A*ir Cooler Beat Exchanger Shell-Side Performance Data Wall Temp. Estimate 115.12 (oF)

Jo .653457 Fc .143691 31rlm .944127 ri 3.50377E-02

.438928 Sm 19068.35 j

Sob 293.253 Stb 374.858 Jb .719008 Nos 0 Ntcc 0 r so 0 Fsbp .263905 ji 4.85380E-03 REs 49043.7 mdots 1315.74 PRO 3.21480 PHIsubS .876773 Jtotal .443590 Ideal Ho (Metric) 12038.3 (W/mZ2*K)

Ideal Ho (English) 2119.95 (BTU/hr-ft 2 -*F)

Actual Ho (English) 940.391 (BTU/hr-ft2 -0 F)

Tube-Side Performance Data "dotTube 26S85- .2 5q cý7 Tube-side mass flowrate (lbm/hr).

VelTube Fluid Velocity (ft/sea).

PRTube 5.93170 Prandtl No.

RETube Reynold's No.

ETA 2-.-44449-0-2 Lib21.353 CK1 J-082,00ý- i,0,2Br1q" CK2 12- 69437 Ct?' D

-:fCV41 -40 9V L 0 /et CM= NO.94-053 1 - PAGE 22 o0.27 PROTO-POWER CORPORATION o,1a0zo. D=* AUG 10, 1994 GROTON, CONNECTICUT . M Jo1*0*77115165

=.IW NORTHEAST UTILITIES P MP2 SWS

"' MP2 SWS-Maximum Allowable SWS Temperature to the EDG Heat Exchangers f 1800 KW and 2750 KW Electrical Load. Levels With 5% Tubes Plugged in each Unit (5, 10, and 5 Tubes Respectively) Assuming Ij GPM @ 2750 KW and 265 GPM @ 1800 KW 5)-

Numerator -4a9-F94-kR 477- 22_3a Denominator NusseltNum ~&9/79 z6774l.S Hi Tube-Side Coef. (BTUlhr-ft 2 -F)

Overall Performance Data U (BTU/hr-ftz-*F)

Heat Transferred (BTU/hr)

Log Mean Delta T (OF)

Effective Area 160. 8532 (ft2)

Tube-side Flow Area .243451 (ft 2 )

Shell Temp In 134 (OF)

Shell Temp Out (OF)

H4.946~ 7 Tube Temp In (OF) as-.-5"7o7 cc~I / Tube Temp Out (OF)

I)L, 4.. i olrHa xhne Shell-Side Performance Data' Wall Temp. Estimate 117.392 (OF)

Jc .844783 PC .409420 31 .911143 rlm 5.76730E-02 rs .422009 Sm 23684.8 Ssb 576.454 Stb 789.521 Jb .804965 NHa 0 Ntcc 0 res 0 Fsbp .173564 i 1.849259E-02 REs 1580.554 mndots 1143.763 PRs 236.3515

2ý) 14 - 4 eS - //// " 2- AV 0 , Aqc- X 6 CA Wno. 94-0573 PAGE'.'

23 O F 27 PROTO-POWER CORPORATION --z----ok AUG 10, 1994 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ,OBMO. 77115165 NORTHEAST UTILITIES P MP2 SWS 8191T MP2 SWS-Maximum Allowable SWS Temperature to the EDG Heat Exchangers e 1800 KW and 2750 KW Electrical Load Levels With 5% Tubes Plugged in each Unit (5, 10, and 5 Tubes Respectively) Assuming 525 GPM @ 2750 KW and 265 GPM @ 1800 KW PHIsubS .1795958 Jtotal .6195971 Ideal Ho (Metric) 928.0929 (W/m 2 -°K)

Ideal Ho (English) 163.4372 (BTU/hr-ftz-*F)

(BTU/hr-ft 2 -0 F)

Actual Ho (English) 101.2652 Tube-Side Performance Data MdotTube -246e2-5 2510 9 7 Tube-side mass flowrate (lbm/hr).

VelTube 2,8244&5-Z- 7257 Fluid Velocity (ft/sec).

PRTube 5.45632 Prandtl No.

RETube 4Q49-r 166 77. i Reynold's No.

ETA 1 7126;S02 oO0fl73-9 CK1 1.92 1 c 9.3o 711 CK2 12.7224 Numerator 3 //3t; 20 Denominator 2-,-64-74 z . 553?

NuseeltNum 611//7- 25"f"7/

2 Hi 92.-2-33 7-70. -40 Tube-Side Coef. (BTU/hr-ft -*F)

/Overall Performance Data (BTU/hr-ft 2 -*F)

U Heat Transferred 71-435 560 -,:- ;/3.67ý (BTU/hr)

Log Mean Delta T (OF)

Effective Area 274.2 17 (ft 2 )

Tube-side Flow Area .41502 (ft 2 )

Shell Temp In 215 (OF)

Shell Temp Out asa-.-9O /,7L: '90; (OF)

Tube Temp In 95.i-r2-4* 539 (OF)

Tube Temp Out (OF)

I 4.2.3 944.8737,~9 Jackeht Water Cooler Heat Exchanger Shell-Side Performance Data Wall Temp. Estimate 149.239 (OF) jc .653457 Fc .143691

It) A12- two /PeŽo 7 CAC3.94-03 ' - 24 2 " 27 PROTO-POWER CORPORATION o0ncximmR

• AUG 10, 1994 GROTON, CONNECTICUT PrMmm '70o'0- 77115165 L1u NORTHEAST UTILITIES " MP2 SWS

' MP2 SWS-Maximum Allowable SWS Temperature to the EDG Heat Exchangers @ 1800 KW and 2750 KW Electrical Load Levels With 5% Tubes Plugged in each Unit (5, 10, and 5 Tubes Respectively) Assuming 525 GPM 1 2750 KW and 265 GPM @ 1800 KW J1 .944127 rim 3.50377E-02 rs .438928 Sm 19068.3 Sob 293.253 stb 374.858 Jb .719008 NUs 0 Ntcc 0 res 0

Fsbp .263905 jii 4.31713E-03 REB 66859.9 imdots 1321.02 PRs 2.29235 PHIsubS .876500 Jtotal .443590 Ideal Ho (Metric) 13455.95 (W/m2-RK)

Ideal Ho (English) 2369.593 (BTU/hr-ft 2 -*F)

Actual Ho (English) 1051.129 (BTU/hr-ft 2 -*F)

Tube-Side Performance Data MdotTube L5 5 2 '-701-7 Tube-side mass flowrate (lbm/hr).

VelTube 4.82165" 2* Fluid Velocity (ft/sec).

PRTube 4.919826 Prandtl No.

3 115490'7 t Reynold's No.

RETube 49 ETA 2..3190713 O2 oo2-331*

CK1 4.9,-"817-* 13-o-o7 9 S53G CK2 12.75833 Numerator 41650- .2334- ISIS 248 Denominator 241"3 5t-3 4~It3 NusseltNum Hi -42#6.e93- i24ý6-4.*6 Tube-Side Coef. (BTU/hr-ftz-F)

Overall Pprformance Data C.c.JO)

(BTU/hr-ft 2 -*F)

U Heat Transferred (BTU/hr)

Log Mean Delta T 66i-49-3t- &6-z96 (CF)

CoAl.o) k `4 - ý) ES - //// /-/ 2- AW e ', 16zp- an c No- 94-053 - P 2 5 0 27 PROTO-POWER CORPORATION oiuca..,R M AUG 10, 1994 GROTON, CONNECTICUT PX'wR i K '10. 77115165

• NORTHEAST UTILITIES P MP2 SWS MP2 SWS-Maximum Allowable SWS Temperature to the EDG Heat Exchangers @ 1800 XW and 2750 KW Electrical Load Levels With 5% Les Plugged in each Unit (5, 10, and 5 Tubes Respectively) Assuming 6255 GPM @ 2750 KW and 265 GPM e 1800 KW Effective Area 160.8532 (ft 2 )

Tube-side Flow Area .243451 (fta)

Shell Temp In 175 (OF)

Shell Temp Out 75 9 .6;74', 151T- ý3 I (°F)

Tube Temp In (OF)

Tube Temp Out (OF) 5.0-CONCLUSIONS The conclusion of this calculation is that for the heat exchanger geometry provided in Attachments (C) and (E), with a tube plugging level of five percent, a cooling water inlet temperature of 77.124OF can be permitted.

Summary Table 1800 KW Heat Transfer - Required Q Q @ 265 GPM SW @

Unit 4 (MBtu/Hr) 77.124°F

__(MBtu/Hr)

Air Cooler 1.6874 1.6874*

Lube Oil Cooler 2.0985 2.16429 Jacket Water Cooler 1.8600 2.14933

• -Limiting Summary Table 2750 KW Q @- 7 GPM SW '

Heat Transfer 4 Required Q Unit 4 (MBtu/Hr) j 4-A44&i?

___________77__ (MBtu/Hr)

Air Cooler 2.0670 .246-73 2'-D6'7 (CrMo Lube Oil Cooler 2.279 2v44Oie7 2"3947 Jacket Water Cooler 2.823 .- *464 3?.b,L

• - Limiting 6.0 ASSUMPTIONS and AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY 6.1 The method provided by Reference (1) is based on the Bell-Delaware method and is accurate for "Industrial Size" heat exchangers according