ML13322A116
| ML13322A116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde, Waterford, San Onofre, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1985 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508210128 | |
| Download: ML13322A116 (17) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCE-AR -REGULATORY-COMMtSSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos.:
50-361, 50-362, 50-382,50-528, 50-529, and 50-530 APPLICANTS:
Combustion Engineering (CE)
FACILITY:
CE Plants
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING TO DISCUSS LOCA ANALYSIS FOR CE PLANTS By letter dated July 2, 1985, CE informed the NRC that the large-break LOCA analysis for CE plants contained a non-conservative assumption. Specificically, the axial power distribution and peaking factor assumed in the analysis was not the worst case. CE subsequently informed the staff that CE plants on their first cycle (Palo Verde 1, San Onofre 3, and Waterford 3) were close enough to the 2200 0F peak clad temperature limit that correction of the non-comservative assumption in the LOCA analysis of record might result in exceedance of the 2200 0 F limit.
A meeting was held on July 10, 1985, in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss this issue. Attendees are given in Enclosure 1. At the meeting, CE stated that changing the axial power shape and peaking factor to appropriately conservative values resulted in a 340 F increase in peak clad temperature for CESSAP plants.
CE also stated that only plants in their first operating cycle (prior to first refueling) were within 34oF of the 22000 F limit of 10 CFR 50.46. The view graphs presented by CE at the meeting are given in Enclosure 2.
CE also presented data indicating that other proposed revisions to the CE LOCA evaluation model would result in peak clad temperatures below 2200OF for all CE plants. These revisions have not been approved by the staff at this time for most CE plants.
At the meeting, the NRC staff indicated that all owners of CE plants, especially licensees of the three plants now on their first cycle should evaluate their compliance with the ECCS regulations, and should document the current status of their plants relative to the requirements 10 CFR 50. For plants where the addition of 340 F would put the peak clad temperature over 2200'F, a justifi cation for continued operation should be provided, along with a schedule for 8508210128 850731 PDR ADOCK 05000361 P
PDR.
-2 submittal of a revised LOCA analysis documenting compliance with 50.46 and Appendix K..
Harry Rood, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page KA
Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Southern California Edison Company Units 2 and 3 cc:
Mr. James C. Holcombe Mr. Hans Kaspar, Executive Director Vice President - Power Supply Marine Review Committee, Inc.
San Diego Gas & Electric Company 531 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 105 101 Ash Street Encinitas, California 92024 Post Office Box 1831 San Diego, California. 92112 Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
Mr. Mark Medford James A. Beoletto, Esq.
Southern-California Edison Company Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Rosemead, California 91770 Dr. L. Bernath Manager, Nuclear Department Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe San Diego Gas & Electric Company ATTN:
David R. Pigott, Esq.
P. 0. Box 1831 600 Montgomery Street San Diego, California 92112 San Francisco, California 94111 Richard J. Wharton, Esq.
University of San Diego School of Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Law Rourke & Woodruff Environmental Law Clinic Suite 1020 San Diego, California 92110 1055 North Main Street Santa Ana, California, 92701 Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq.
Attorney at Law Mr. V. C. Hall 24012 Calle de la Plaza/Suite 330 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Laguna Hills, California 92653 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095 Region Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. S. McClusky 1450 Maria Lan/Suite 210 Bechtel Power Corporation Walnut Creek, California 92672 P. 0. Box 60860, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90060 Resident Inspector, San Onofre NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. C. B. Brinkman Post Office Box 4329 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
San Clemente, California 92672 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. Dennis F. Kirsh U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ERegion V
1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 WalnutRCreek, California 94596 Attendees MEETING TO DISCUSS CE ECCS ANALYSIS July 10, 1985 Name Organization H. Rood NRC - DL G. Knighton NRC - DL C. Molnar CE Licensing M. Barnoski CE D. Statile ANPP,- Nuc. Fuel K. L. McCandless ANPP Licensing J. B. Holman LP&L R. M. McIntyre NRC VPB C. B. Brinkman CE Bethesda J. H. Wilson LB#3 -
NRR K. W. Cook LP&L - Nuclear Supp. & Lic.
R. J. Murillo LP&L-Licensing K. R. Iyengar LP&L Nuclear Support Ronald J. Stevens FPL Nuclear Licensing Joel Handschuh FPL Donald E. Sells DL, ORB#3, St Lucie Ed. Finsternacha PLG representing OPPD Harry Mulliken CE Lee Anderson SCE Peter Smith SCE Ian Richard C-E R. C. Jones NRC -
RSB Norm Lauben NRC -
RSB Brian Sheron NRC -
RSB Jeb Kingseed Combustion Engineering Chuck Kling Combustion Engineering Manny Licitra NRC, DL/LB3 Joe Mihalcik BG&E D. H. Jaffe ORB3, DL COMBUSTION ENGINEERING LARGE BREAK LOCA EVALUATION MODEL AXIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AND PEAKING FACTOR SENSITIVITY JULY 10, 1985
INFLUENCE OF AXIAL SHAPE ON C-E LOCA EM
- BACKGROUND
- REVISED C-E EVALUATION DEL INFLUENCE OF AXIAL SHAPE ON SBLOCA
- INFLUENCE OF AXIAL SHAPE ON LBLOCA
- CURRENT RESULTS
- STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL C-E PLRffS
- CONCLUSIONS
- RECOMEIDATIO
BACKGROUND C-E POSITION ON AXIAL SHAPES FOR LBLOCA STATED IN CENPD-132 (1974)
CLAD TEMPERATURE AT CONTACT SLIGHTLY HIGHER FOR TOP PEAK SHAPE TOP PEAKED SHAPES ARE HARDER TO COOL DURING REFLOOD THAN CENTER PEAKED SHAPES (BASED ON HIGHER INTEGRATED ENERGY TO THE PEAK)
FLECHT DATA CONFIRMS INTEGRATED ENERGY HYPOTHESIS IS CONSERVATIVE FOR TOP PEAKS NRC REQUESTED ADDITIONAL DATA ON 2/85 C-E STATED THAT APPLICABLE AXIAL SHAPE STUDIES WOULD BE PRESENTED IN TOPICALS ON REVISED EM
REVISED C-E EM CEFLASH NUMERICS CEFLASH LEAK FLOW MODEL FLOW BLOCKAGE MODEL (NUREG-630)
CONSIDERATION OF NO SINGLE FAILURE ADDED LPSI INJECTION AXIAL SHAPE SENSITIVITY SUBMITTED 12/81, USED ON WATERFORD DOCKET
INFLUENCE OF AXIAL SHAPE ON SBLOCA TRANSIENT TOP PEAKS MORE ADVERSE BECAUSE ONLY TOP OF CORE UNCOVERS HIGHER PEAK/AVERAGE AXIALS AND LOWER RADIALS (FOR SAME PEAK KW/FT) MORE ADVERSE BECAUSE LOWER INTEGRATED ENERGY TO PEAK PRODUCES LESS STEAM COOLING CONFIRMED BY SBLOCA AXIAL SHAPE STUDIES THEREFORE CURRENT EM APPROACH IS CONSERVATIVE
INFLUENCE OF AXIAL SHAPE ON LBLOCA TRANSIENT
- BLOWDOWN LARGER CORE FLOWS PRODUCE SMALL AXIAL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCES AT EOB SMALLER REVERSE CORE FLOWS PRODUCE HIGHER MIDPLANE TEMPERATURES AT EOB
- REFILL -
ESSENTIALLY ADIABATIC HEATUP RESULTS IN SAME TEMPERATURE RISE FOR ALL PEAKS AT SAME KW/FT
- REFLOOD FLECHT DATA ABOVE 1 IN/SEC, WITH INTEGRATED ENERGY CORRECTION, PRODUCES SLIGHTLY MORE ADVERSE RESULTS FOR TOP PEAKS STEAM COOLING (BELOW 1 IN/SEC)
PRODUCES BETTER RESULTS FOR FLATTER AXIAL PEAKS
CURRENT LBLOCA RESULTS (PRELIMINARY)
APPLICATION OF REVISED C-E EM TO W LBLOCA DPCT AXIAL SHAPE 1.52 CENTER
-43 1.52 TOP
-1414 1.68 TOP APPLICATION OF CURRENT EM TO CESSAR LBLOCA (ONLY AXIAL SHAPE INFLUENCE)
DPCT AXIAL SHAPE 1.68 TOP 34 1.52 TOP 24 1,52 CENTER APPLICATION OF REVISED C-E EM TO CESSAR LBLOCA (INCLUDING AXIAL SHAPE INFLUENCE)
DPCT AXIAL SHAPE
-30 1.52 TOP
STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL C-E PLANTS PLANT CURRENT MARGIN TECH SPEC LBLOCA PCT(0F) PCT(0F)
KW/FT CALVERT CLIFFS UNIT 1 1836 364 15.5 UNIT 2 1945-255 15.5 ST LUCIE 2 2041 159 13.0 ANO-2 2041 159 14.5 SONGS UNIT 2 2015 185 13.9 UNIT 3 2183 17 13.9 WATERFORD 3 2188 12 13.4 PVNGS 1,2,3 2169 31
==14.0
CONCLUSION==
S ALL C-E PLANTS, EXCEPT PALO VERDE, SONGS, AND WATERFORD, HAVE SUFFICIENT MARGIN IN PCT TO COVER ADVERSE EFFECT OF REVISED AXIAL SHAPE WITH CURRENT ANALYSES ALL C-E PLANTS EXPECTED TO HAVE PCT'S BELOW 22000 F WHEN APPLYING MOST ADVERSE AXIAL SHAPE AND REVISED EM
CONCLUSIONS (CONTINUED)
PALO VERDE AND SONGS ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT MARGIN TO COVER AXIAL SHAPE INFLUENCE BY TAKING CREDIT FOR NUREG-0630 WATERFORD IS EXPECTED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT MARGIN TO COVER AXIAL SHAPE INFLUENCE BY NOT INCLUDING CONTAINMENT PURGE
RECOMMENDAT IONS C-E FINALIZE SENSITIVITY STUDIES AND PREPARE MATERIAL FOR INCORPORATION INTO REVISED LARGE BREAK LOCA EVALUATION MODEL NRC INITIATE REVIEW OF REVISED LARGE BREAK LOCA EVALUATION MODEL MATERIALS ALREADY SUBMITTED TO NRC FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL (LD-85-032)
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Docket No(s):, 50-361, 50-362, 50-382, 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530 NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC PRC System LB3 Reading Attorney, OELD GWKnighton Project Manager Hgnnd JLee NRC PARTICIPANTS H.Rood G. W. Knighton R. M. McIntyre R. C. Jones N. Lauben B. Sheron M. Licitra bcc:
Applicant & Service List
-2 submittal of a revised LOCA analysis documenting compliance with 50.46 and Appendix K.
Harry Rood, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page DL:LB#3
- 3 HRood/es 8
ighton 7AA/85
//85