ML17054A050
| ML17054A050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1983 |
| From: | Hermann R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308310284 | |
| Download: ML17054A050 (52) | |
Text
August 22, 1983 Docket No. 50-220 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Domenfc B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 82, DL FROM:
SUBJECT:
Robert A. Hermann, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch 82, DL MEETING
SUMMARY
- PLANT SPECIfIC DISCUSSION OF EMERGENCY CORE SPRAY NOZZLE PERFORMANCE A meeting was held with Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation on July 19, 1983 to discuss the differences in core spray performance from those at the Oyster Creek facility and to discuss previous staff questions regarding spray distribution and core cooling.
Viewgraphs presented at the meeting regarding the Nine Mile Point 1
ECCS Sensitivity Studies and the comparfson to Oyster Creek are attached as Enclosures 1
and 2.
Enclosure 3 fs a list of attendees.
The licensee intends to provide a formal plant specific report regarding core spray distribution and performance by September 15, 1983.
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION Original signed by/
Robert A. Hermann, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch 82, DL OFFICE 0 SURNAME) 0A7E P Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR ORB82 Reading JHeltemes BGrimes DVassallo RHermann OELD ORBI'I2:DL RHermann/d 8/O>/83 ELJordan JMTaylor ACRS (10)
NSIC NRC Participants 8308310284 830822 PDR ADOCK 05000220 P
PDR NRC FORM 318 RO/80) NRCM 0240 OFFIC!AL RECORD COPY t
d
- U.S. GPO 1983~00-247
e' I
1 I'
~
f f
Mr.
G.
K. Rnode Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile point Nuclear Station, Unit No.
1 CC:
Troy B. Conner, Jr.,
Esq.
Conner 5 Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania
- Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Mr. Robert P. Jones, Supervisor Town of Scriba R.
D.
P4
- Oswego, New York 13126 Niagara Mohawk power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. Thomas perkins Plant Superintendent Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station post Office Box 32
- Lycoming, New York 13093 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal plaza New York, New York 10007 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission post Office Box 126
- Lycoming, New York 13093 John W. Keib, Esquire Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202 Thomas A. Morley Regional Administrator Region I Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 park Avenue King of prussia, pennsylvania 19406 Mr. Jay Dunkleberoer Division of policy Analysis and planning New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2, Empire State plaza
- Albany, New York 12223
~
~
Jl l"u~~~
j'V NINE MILE POINT 1 ECCS SENSITIVITX'TODIES The ECCS performance for Nine Mile Point 1 is very similar to tho Oyster Creak performance.
The general behavior is thc same.
o With delayed spray cooling credit until S5 psia and no steam cooling the PCT would increase by + 3604F relative to thc latest reload calculation (This is slightly highoz than the 2804F increase foz Oyster Creek because the ADS capacity's less causing a slower blowdown of samll breaks) o With no steam cooling, no zeflooding, and spray cooling credit arbitrarily delayed until S5 psia vessel pressure the MAPLHGR dczato would be approximately 1S pozcent.
o With steam cooling and a delay in spray cooling until SS psia vessel
- pressure, small bzoaks PCT does not exceed approximately 20104F.
(This is lower than Oyster Creek results probably due to a greater amount of integrated steam flow over a longer blowdown time).
o For largo breaks (greater than or equal to 1.0 fts), delaying spray cooling to 55 psia has no significant effect becauso the largo breaks depressurize thc vessol before core spray injection.
o In the reload analysis the 0.07 fthm small brcak is limiting.
However, with credit for stoam cooling, the PCT for thc 0.07 fthm is lowered more than for larger breaks changing the shape of the small break spectrum.
This is thc same behavior as observed for Oyster Creek where larger breaks depressurize faster and cxpericnce stcam cooling foz a shorter period of time.
o The small breaks will all zeflood and stoam cooling + zcflooding alone (with no spray cooling) would limit PCT to less than 22004F.
In summary, thc principal diffcrcnces botween Nine Mile Point 1 and Oyster 'Crook are a lower. ADS capacity and a higher case spray flow sate for Nine Mile Point, This results in a similar ECCS performance behavior gonerally but a slightly different shape of the small brcak spectrum and slightly different sensitivity to steam cooling and spray cool'ing pzessur'e.
TABLE OF RESULTS STEAM COOLING AND C.S.
COOLING AT 55 PSIA BREAK SIZE (FT2)
T UNCOVERY (sec)
T AT 55 PSIA (sec)
PCT (oF)
- 0. 07
- 0. 30
]. oo j.O0 With no steam cooling 257.
63.
17.5 622 247 103 1830 2010 1990 2015
~
e
NNP 1
CURE RESPGNSE T
DBR RECR LEYEL INS IOE HRQUD 100.
200.
(SEC]
300.
GOO.
1/15 /8 9
GO.
NMP 1
CI3RE.RESPUNSE T
- 0. 07 FT2 L I 0 BRK LEVEL INSIOE HRUUO 40.
UJO 20.
LLj 0.0.
200.
TIME 400.
(SELGNDSj 600.
800.
-2 3 )i<(8i
1.2 x103 NMP 1
CORE RESPGNSE T
DBA RECR SYSTEM PRESSU E
0.8 0.4 t~
LLJ l~
Q
- ~) 4-.. q(
! ~<
'-<~.
tI
< y'-'AVb~
0.0.
100.
T I NI=
200.
(SEC) 300.
- {-<pi
~ (
V- <
~
GOO.
1.2 x]0 NINE MILE CGRE RESPGNSE T
0.07 FT2 LIQ BR SYSTEN PRESSU E
0.8 0.4 0.
O.
400.
200.
TIME (SECONDS)
GOO.
800.
I
)OS 100 10 1.0 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
II' I
I I
IQO
t yr'Q )
4g.l II1
~~ ~oo 1
I.
Q
);o()
ul ch Z
p f~.. l 0
~)
bl 0
IGV rp e~
!;r~i i
/CO 7~
aX ME, (sac) p;~
alrsi~ ~
1.2 x]P
'INE NILE CCIRE RESPl3NSE T
- 0. 07 FT2 L I Q BR SYSTEN PRESSU E
0.8 0.4 r
J7 F) 3 Conc 5prsp Ne'f1*~4 $
p-ss fsiA 0.0.
200.
400.
TINE (SECGNDS) 600.
Fig
't-7 800.
-2
)IIS lo 3
loooo f000 too
/0 I,O 0]
0
/OO
'3 oo goo (secov J;)
Coo 0 I~
Pen I
Sp*A) UA(Rlt:b9//7}g I
I 9oo
A
8 PcT = 3(0' 000 U
Corp Spry p et'25'gj<
)000 C
thf lloyd<
Q ~CevcA5
/ao 200 gOO goo Coo 700
$00
.C' OOOO I 0()
10 l.O H.f M4~
M~c.over 5 p 4cJ 4" 5p-g.
~
4= l.5 O.1
$00 i1OO i oO 7pO 8oO
ns.an lL 0
<<xx I-ul
>5 OO ul z
lOOO (l
P.
gil5g CA 5 c gp 5'~
Ce. I <<)
pC T= lFZ~'F 477N~s~c b PC-T= 372-I-
IOO GOO 3,00 s-oo 0
~ I I
100
60.
NMP 1
CGRE RESPGNSE T
0.07 FT2 LIQ BRK LEYEL INSIDE HRGUD LLj 20.
UJ Ho< Noh~
0 1 odds~
0.0.
VOO.
200.
TIME (SECCINDS) 600.
800.
I-I'
+ lUOOO
} Q 1000 oj 11 11 1L}
uJAt)
IOO 11.
~, V; )
ld
~
t '
}
an~
5gta7' 5
r~
L=)5 0.1 100 QOQ 30@,
~IOO ZOO 600 700 BOO
Llj
.1 Lt u)
)S OO
)0l-Ill H
)happ p
1 6-se C~s..
Mo Stei ~ (ool M,
R~klod
)00 Q.OO 300
'700
A I0
(>
ul Vl Vl uJ o.q O.
O.g.
100 hOO lf00 suv
+00
1-U.
l/Q p
IIJ 1-90 J
uj) sn I'I I
I I
//////
/
r 10 I
0.07 FT BREAK O.'5 F T 8 R'EA K io FT SP,E.AW IOO
'3 OO
> 0<~
~q OO wT~E. (sec)
F')
V(o 7 I<</>9
-NNP1 REQUIRED SPRAY FLOW/BUNDLE IS SANE AS OYSTER CREEK TO SUPPORT APPENDIX K HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS
-NYP1 SPARG R DESIGN IS SAN AS OYSTER CREEK
/- J+R rz.
-NMP1 SPARGER FLOW IS HIGHER THAN OYSTER CREEK
-HIGHER SPARGER FLOW INCREASES SPRAY FLOM/BUNDLE
-THEREFORE NNPl CORE WIDE NININUN BUNDLE FLOW IS HIGHER THAN OYSTER CREEK
-THEREFORE TH OYSTER CREEK CORE SPRAY DISTRIBUTION RESULTS ARE BOUNDING FOR NYiPl
250 c5 300 Q.
I ul R
~ l5'0 Uj 0-NiNF WiLe VOtNT i cn JOO tU OYSTER CREEK SO 3000 OOOO SOOO 60oo CORE SPRAY SPARG-EA FLOE,'ATt-=-G.Pt1 iSi gnl eSpn ge ('ne Puwp St<< '<<g Ope<< t<<n)~
Com arison to 0 ster Creek Core S ra S stem 0 ster Creek Nine Nile Point 1
Pump Head/Capacity Sparger Fl ow Res is tance t1inimum Flow Bypass -Line Flow Rate, gpm Suction Line Size, in Injection Line Size, in
~
~
S1ml Iiar -""----
Same 300 12 10~
8 12
-NtP1 Core spray Flow Rate is greater than Oyster Creek because of larger suction and injection line sizes and because of zero bypass flow.
0
Com arison with 0 ster Creek 0 ster Creek Nine Mile Point 1
Power, l4t Number of Fuel Bundles Average Bundle Power, Mwt/Bundle Sparger Design Sparger Flow 9 30 psia, gpm Sparger Flow 9 55 psia, gpm 193O 1850 560 532 3.45 3.48 4690 5020 4500 4860
--- same ------
~
e
- SPARGEP, FLOW RATE COh1PARISON (Single Sparger/One Pump String Operating)
Vessel Pressure Oyster Creek Sparger Flow Rate I
Nine Nile Point 1
S ar er Flow Rate Psig Psia gpm 15.3
- 40. 3 75.3 14.7 30 55 90 4810 4690 4500 4210 5110 5020 4860 4620 110 124.7 135.3 150 185.3 200 235.3 250 3900 3650 3100 2390 4360 4160 3690 3080
0 0
ENCLOSURE 3
LIST OF ATTENDEES Name Ray Pasternack D.
K. Green S.
W. !lilzek, Jr.
P.
F. Hells M. A. Caruso R.
A. Hermann Or anization NMPC, Sr. Nuclear Eng.
NMPC, Nuclear Fuel Eng.
NMPC, Manager Nuclear Technology GPU Nuclear Corp., Sr. Licensing Eng.
NRC/DL, Licensing Engineer (RS)
NRC/DL, Sr. Project Manager