ML17187A804

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Containment Analysis of DBA-LOCA to Update Design Basis for Lpci/Ccs, for GENE-637-042-1193
ML17187A804
Person / Time
Site: Dresden  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 02/28/1994
From: Mintz S, Torbeck J
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17187A798 List:
References
GENE-637-042-11, GENE-637-042-1193, GENE-637-42-11, GENE-637-42-1193, NUDOCS 9702240215
Download: ML17187A804 (45)
v • d • e


Text

Dresden Nuclear Power Station i

  • Units 2 and 3 GE Nuclear Energy G_,,,~~

ITS OatMl'"..-_S1111J*11, C4 9SIH

~37..()41-1193 DRF T23-00717 CLASSil FEBRUARY 1994.

pint8inment Analyses of the DBA+LOCA

  • to Update the Design Basis for the
  • LPCT/Containment Cooling System

/

~~s.~*.*.

I *.

Engineering & Licensing Consultlng Services

  • 1 Projects I

I I

~roved~

1.

~~rbeck I. *

  • Project Manager, Engineering & Licensing Consulting Services I

Proj-i I

I I

' 9702240215 970217\\I PDR ADOCK 05000237

  • P PDft

~--_---.-.-,--.-------:--- -----------::- -.,.'..

--- ---*~ *--;---*

-~.. -

...... l I

GENE-637-042-1193 IMPORT~ INFORMATION REGARDING CONTENTS OF nns REPORT I

The only undertakings of the General Electric Company (GE) respecting infonnation in this document are contained in the contract between Commonwealth Bdi~n Company *

  • (CECo) and GE, as identified in Purchase Order Number 341715, YY68, as amended to th~ date of transmittal. of this d~ment, and nothing contained in this document shall be

. construed as changing the con~ The use of this infonnation.by anyone other than CECo, or for any purpose other ~an that for Which it is intended, is not authoriml; and with respect to any unauthorlz.ed use, GB makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, and assumes no liability ~.to the completeneSs, accuracy or use.fulness of the infonnation contained in this document. or that its use may not infiinge privately owned rights.

. I ii

  • ~'..

.. t.;

CJE?'1E-637-042-1193 ABSTRACT This report proVides the results for an evaluation for the Dresden containment response I

.* during a design basis loss-of-cool8nt accident (DBA-LOCA) to update the analytic31 design basis of the Dresden LPcUContainment Cooling System. The results of the containment pressure and temperature response analyses described in this report can be*

I

    • used to update the lorig-tenn co~ainment cooling analyses in Section 6;2 of the 1Ii'SAR and the evaluation of available NPSH for pumps taking suction from the suppression poo~

. in Section 6.3 of the UFSAR.

  • *In addition, this rei>ort : I) descri~es an analysis which was used to benchmark the GE.

..S-HEX code* to the Dresden UFSAR containment analysis for.the limiting DBA-LOCA, and 2) includes a study of the etfuct on the peak suppression pool temperature of*

  • I changing key' containment param~ to the vallles used to update the analytical design...
  • .. basis for the LPCI/Containment Cooling System from the values used ~the original

. UFSAR analysis~

. ~ I I

. I.

  • ~

I I*

  • - : I I

I

.1 I.

I.

I

. I I

. I I

i.

. I ll1

~-.

. '"\\,'

CJ~-637-042-1193

~ABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1.0.

INTRODucnoN 2.0 **RESULTS

.3.0 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND ENGrnBERING ruDGMENTS

  • 4.0 INPtrr DOCUMENTATION

.

  • 5.0
  • REGuLATORYREQumbmrrs **

6.0 LIMITATIONS OF APPLlCABll..ITY I

I 7.o

    • CALCULATIONS AND d,OMPU1¥ CODES
  • s.o ' Q/ARECORDS 9.o REFERENCES
  • 10.0
  • APPENDICES I

I iv

  • C *

.T~,

I GENE-637-042-1~93 1.0 INTRODUCDON The pwpos~ of the analyses in this report is to provide an updated analytical design basis for the LPCI/Contairunent Cooling S~

for Dresden Units 2 ~d 3; The results of these an&lyses can be used to support a licensing ~endment and can be used to update the licensing basis

  • documents, including the UFS~ for the LPCI/Containment Cooling System.

GENE previously performed long-term containment analyses for Dresden which were proVi.ded to I

  • Commonwealth Edison Company, {CECo) in GEN& 170-26-1092 (Reference 1). These analyses

. used the same containment coolif!g configurations assumed for Cases 3 and 4 ~f Sedion '6.2

  • the *.

. Dresden UFSAR. Cases 3 and 3, ofGENE-770-26-1092, which eoriespond to UFSAR Case 3, assumed operation with 2 LPCJ/Containment Cooling pwilps and 2 Containment Cooling Service I

Water (CCSW) pumps. Cases 4 :and 4a of GENE-770-26-1092, which correspond to UFSAR

. Case 4,*assumed operation.with l'. LPcrJContaimnent Cooling puinp*apd 1 CCSW pump; I

I CECo plans to use the resul~ for,Case 4 of GENE-n0.26;,;I 092 to update the basis for long~.

  • ter:m containment cooling in UFS~ Section 6.2 for a configu(ltion of i LPCI/Containment.

t Cooling pump and 1 CCSW pump;. CECo also plans to update the UFSAR basis for long-tenn

    • .* eontainment cooling for a co~gui'ation of2 LPCl/Containment cOoling pumps and *2 (;CSW

.pump~. However, CECO pl~. to: update the results of Case 3 of GENE--770-2~ 1092 with a*

revised CCSW;tlow. rate and withla corresponding revised heat exchanger heat removal rate.

  • The analyses descnoed in this report supplement the analyses of GENE-770~26-l 092 in updating.*
  • the design basis for the LP~Containment CQoling System.*

I L 1

  • SCOPE OF WORK I,

. 'The workScope of this report involves analysis of the containment long-term pr~ssure and

    • temperature respon$e following a DBA;.LQCA for Dresden: Long-term is defined here as I
  • . begiiming at 600 seconds into the event, which is when containment cooling is initiated, and I
    • .. :.extending through the time of the peak suppression pool temperature. *~analysis.uses the GE SHEX computer code. and current'.standard assumptions for containment cooling analysis,

.. including the uSe of the ANS S. I decay heat model.

I

    • .Four tasks are documented in thisireport. Task 1 benchmarks the SHEX code to the analysis in
  • I Secti()n 6.2 of the Dresden UFSAif-for.the limiting, DBA-LOCA event.. Task 2 consists of

.. i I...

J

. :-*. *... *.~:_'?

r"' **

Ci'EJ'ilE-637-042~1193 sensitivity studies to assess the ef;fect of using the ANS S. l versus the May-Witt decay heat model and to demonstrate the effect of other key containment parameters on the design basis BD;Blysis.

. Task 3 *consists of an analysis to calculate the long-term DBA*LOCA contamment pressure and temperature response With 2 LPQJ/Containment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW pumps. 'fhe analysis of Task 3 uses revised Wlues of the CCSW pump flow rate ~d heat exchanger heat removal K-value whic}l were pro'1ded by CECo in Reference 2. The results of Task 3 can be

~ed with the results of Case 4 oti GENE-770-26-1092 ( 1.LPCVContaimnent Cooling pqmp and*

  • 1 CCSW pump) to update the long-term containment cooling analysis in UFSAR Section 6.2.

I Task 4 consists of analysis with tlie updated basis configw;ations with inputs which minimize containment pressure. The resultS of the analysis of Task 4 can be used hi the evaluation of NPSH margins for the Core Spray and the LPCl/Containment Cooling pumps for the DBA-LOCA These results can then bC1 used t.o update the NPSH evaluation for the LPCI/Containment I

Cooling pumps and COre Spray p(lmps in UFSAR. Section 6.3.

. 1.0 RESULTS I.

The results for each of the four tasks described in Section 1. 0 are summarized in the I

following paragraphs:*.

I.

I.

I.

. Task 1 SHEX Benchmar~ Analysis (Case I)

I I

The benchmark analysis oti ease 1 is performed to detennine the difference iii the.. *...

calculate<J peak suppressio~ pool temperature relative to the UFSAR value of I

l 800F due tO the use of die GE SHEX-04 code. The benclunark analysis uses key h

  • input assumptions which are consistent With the input used in the analysis for Case

'4 in UFSAR Section 6.2. 1'his includes the use of May-Witt decay heat (Reference 3), an initial suppression pool temperature of90°F, no feedwater additi~n, no.

I

  • pump heat addition and a ~onfiguration of 1 Containment Cooling loop with 1 heat exchanger, I LPCI/Contaiiiment Cooling pump and 1 CCS\\V pump, with a heat exchanger heat removal rate of84.5 million Btu/hr (referenced to a suppression
  • pool-to-service water temP,erature difference of 85°17). The basis. for the inputs used for the benclunark arullysis is discussed in Section 3.1 of this report.
    • The suppression pool temp'.erature response obtained with Case 1 to benchmark

. SHEX with the UFSAR ~ysis is shown in Figure I. The peak suppression pool i*

  • 2 I
  • r
      • r:-* r *
~:
~

G-~37-042-1193 I

temperature obtained with: the SHEXbencbmark analysis (Case I) is 180°F,

  • which is the same as the UFSAR. value of 180°F. These results confirm that the I

SHEX code predicts a peak suppression pool temperature for Dresden which is the same as the original UFSAR value for the ~e input conditions.

Ta.Sk2 I

I

  • Sensitivity $tudies (Cases 2.1 to 2.5)

The sensitivity studies in C~es 2.1 to 2.5 are performed to quantify the. effect on the peak suppressi~n pool temperature of each key containment parameter which

  • was changed from the original UFSAR value to the value used in the current.

I analyses. For each of Cases 2.1to2.5, one of the parameters descn"bed above for Task 1 is changed from the: value used in the original UFSAR.analysis to the value used in~ current analysisi(Case 4 ofGENE-770-26-1092) to update the I

/

LPCJ/Containmem Cooling basis for a configuration of 1 LPCJ/Containment Cooling pump and 1 CCSW pump.

Table 1 summarizes the p~ suppression poo~ tempenlt:ures obtaitied for Case 1 of Task.1 and. Cases ~.1 to 2.? of Task :2, and *a1~ show5 the incremental effect on the UFS~ peak.suppressi.,n pool temperawre ~f changing each parameter. The peak suppression pool temP,erature obtained for Case 4 of GENE-770-26-~ 092 is also included in ~Tabl~ 1 to ~ow the net effect of all parameter changes.

I I

The results ~f the sensitivi~ analyses (Cties 2J to 2.S of Task 2) showed that the increment81 effect on peak suppression pool for each of the current input.

assumptions is: 2°F for feeqwater, 2°F for pump heat, 1°F for initial suppression po,ol temperature and S°F for the current heat e>cchanger heat renioval K-yalue.

.. When added, the total effect of usUig the airrent input assumptions is eqtial the

.

  • effect of using the ANS S.1\\decay heat instead of the May.;. Witt decay heat (10°F).

.1 Task3 Design Basis Analysis for a 2 LPCI/Containment Cooling Pumps arid 2 CCS~ Pumps Configuration (Case 3)

I

-ease 3 *provides an analysis tto update the UFSAR. long-tenn containment c0oling

..basis for a configuration of.2 LPCJ/Con~ent Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW

  • I I.

\\

I I

GENE-637-042-i 193 pumps_ The heat exchanger heat removal K-value for Case 3 of Task 3 is 365.2 I

Btu/sec-°F, corresponding to a total CCSW pump flow rate of 6000 gpm (Reference 2). The results; of Task 3 can be used with the resultS of Case 4 of GENE~770-26-1092 ( 1 UPCI/Containment Cooling pump and 1 CCSW pump) to update the long-tenn containment cooling analysis basis in UFSAR. Section 6.2.

  • I I

Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the long-tenn containinent pressure and temperature I

response for Case 3 of Task 3. The peak ~ppression pool temperature obtained' for Case 3 of Task 3 is t'.67°F.

This tempCi'ature is slightly less ( 1 °F les~) thaa the value of 168°F obtain¢ previously for.the same containment cooling configuration (but with a 4>ta1 ccsw* pump ftow rate of 5600 gpm) for Case 3 of GE.NE. 770-26-1092. Th~ lower peak suppression pool tempenlture obtained for Case 3 of. Task 3 is attnbuted to the increase in the heat exchanger heat removal K-value to 365.2 Btu/seo-!F from the value of 356. l Btu/sec-°F used for Case 3*

ofGENE-770-26-1092..,

i

/

Table 2 provides a case sWnmary for case 3 of Task 3, including the peak

.suppression pool temperathre and peak long-term suppression chamber pressure.

I

  • Table 2 also provides a.~ summary for Case 4 of GENE-770-26-1092,

. corresponding to a ~nfigqration of 1 LPCI/~ontainment ~nng' pump and 1.

. CCSW pump. The result& shown in Table 2 can be used to*update the basis in I

UFSAR Secti~n 6.2 for long-term contaimnent cooling.

  • Task4

-~

Design Basis;Analyses for NPSH Evaluation (Cases 4.1 & 4.2) 1

  • Cases 4.1 and 4.2 detennirie the suppression pool temperature and suppression

, I

.

  • chamber pressure i'esponse'-which can be used to evaluate available NPSH for the LPCl/Containment._Cooling pumps and Core Spray pumps during a DB.A-:i.oCA.

The results for Case 4. i are for a configuration of 1 LPCVContainment Cooliilg I

pump and 1 CCSW pump., nie results for Case 4.2 are for a configuration of 2 LPCI/Contahlment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW pumps. CaSes 4.1 and 4.2 used '

I the same iriput assumptions as used for Case 3 of Task 3 and Case 4 of GENE-770-26-1092, respectively,,except that the suppression chamber pressure response, was minimized to minimize'. the.available NPSH.

4

-~.*

3.0 GENE--037-042-1193 I

The long-term drywell and suppression chamber pressure and suppression chamber I

airspace and suppression pool temperature responses obtained for Cases 4.1 and 4.2 are shown in Figures S through 10. The peak suppression pool temperature and the suppression chamber pressure at the time of the peak suppression pool I

temperature for Cases 4.11and 4.2 are shown in Table 3.

DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND ENGINEERING JUDGMENTS I

Input assumptions are used which: maintain the overall conservatism in the evaluation by maximizing the suppression pool temperature. Additionally, the input assumptions for tbe analysis in Task 4 are chosen to c;9nservatiVely minimi7.C th~ suppression chamber pressure and, therefore, minimize the available NPSH The key input assumptions which are used in performing the Dresden contalllment DBA~LOCA pressure and temperature response analysis are d~bed below. TU,>le 4 provides values ofkey Containment parameters common tQ all cases, while.Table~ and Table 6 provide case-specifi~)nputs.

1.

The reaCtor is assumed to l>e operating at 102% of the rated thennal power;

  • .2.
  • Vessel blowdown flow~ are based.on the Homogeneous Equih"brlum Model (Referenc~ 4).
  • . '.3.
4.

I c

The core d~y heat is based on ANSVANS-5.1-1979 decay heat (Reference S).

I

[For the benc~ analysis in Task I and for the parametric ~dies in

  • Task 2 ( eXcept for,Case 2.1 )*the core decay heat. used. was based on the May-Wrtt decay heat.model (Reference 3)).

Feedwater flow into the RPV continues Wrtil d the feedwater above lSO°F is injected into the vessel

[For the benclunar~ ~ysis in Task 1 and for the parametric studies in Task 2 (except for Case 2.3) feedwater is not added.]

I.

I I*.

5

5.
6.

8 (JE'.NE-637-042-1193 Thennodyiuunic equilibrium exists bet\\veen the liquids and gases in the drywell.

Mechanistic heat and mass ;transfer between the suppression pool and the suppr~on chamber airspace are modeled..

I

  • To minimize the containmept pressure for the analyses in Task 4 it is assumed that there is only partial heat transfer to the fluids in the drywell from the liquid flow
  • from the break which does not flash. To model partial heat transfer in the analysis,'

a fraction of the non-flaWDg liquid break flow is assumed to be held up in the drywell and to be fully mix~ with the ~ell fluids before tlowing to the suppression pool. Thermal; equilibrium conditions are imposed between this held-.

up liquid and the fluids in the drywell as described in Assumption No. 5 above.

I The liqtiid not held up is assumed ~ tlow directly to the suppreSsion pool without heat transfer to the drywell;tluids. For the analysis it is assumed that only 200/o of:* **

the non-flashing liquid flow from the break is held up in the drywell airspace.

I Because the liquid flow from the break is at a higher temperature than the drywell.

/

fluid, this minimizes the dtjwell temperature and consequentljr minimizes the drywell and suppression chamber pressure..

I

  • The vent ~Stem flow to th~ suppression pool consists of a homogeneous mixture.

of the tluid in the dryWell.. *

  • The initial*suppreSsion pool volume is at the minimum Technical Specification (T/S) limit to inaximize th~ caladated suppression pool temperature...

. I I**.

I

9.

For the analyses ofTask.4 the initial drywell and suppression chamber pressure are at the minimum expected operating values. to minimize the containment pressure.

  • 10.

For the analyses in Task 4, ithe maximum operating value of the drywell temperature of 1 SO°F and a relative humidity of 100% are used to minimize the initial non-condensil>le gas mass and minimize the long-term contairunen~ pressure for the NPSH evaluation.. 1.

11.

The initial suppression poof temperature*is at the maximum TIS value (9S0F) to maximize the calculated suppression pool temperature.

~. '

I

  • 6.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

OENE-637-042~ 1193

[For the benc~ analysis in Task 1 and for the parametric studies in Task 2 (except for Case 2.3) an initial suppression pool temperature of 90°F is used.]

are operated continuously ~th tio throttling of the LPCJ/Containment Cooling i

pumps.

I Passive heat sinks in the dr:Ywell, suppression chamber airspace and suppression

  • pool are conseivatively neglected to inaximize _the suppression pool temperature.

I All Core Spray and LPCI/Containment Cooling system pumps have 1000/o of their horsepo"Wer rating converttrd to a pump heat input which is added either to the RPV liquid or *suppression pool water.

/

[For the ben~

analysis in Task 1 and for the parametric studies in Task 2 (except for Case 2.4) pump heat was not added.]

I I

I Heat transfer from the priuiary containment tO the reactor building is conservatively neglected.

Although a containment atmospheric leakage rate of 5% per day is used to

.. determine the available NPSH in UFSAR Section 6.3, containment leakage is not

  • included in the analyses in Task 4. Including containment leakage has no impact on the peak suppression pdol temp~rature, but will slightly reduce the calculated containment pressure.* A leakage rate of S% per day is colisi~ered to be I
  • unrealistically large since the Dresden T/S limits the allowable leakage tO l.6 %

per.day. Use of the leakag~ rate of,1.6 % per day would result in less than a 0~1 psi reduction in the pressur.es calculated in the analysiS. This effect is negligt"ble I

considering all other input conditions have been chosen at their limiting values to I.

I minimize containment pressure and the usumption of only 20% holdup of the non-flashing liquid flow from die break in ~e drywell (see assumption no. 6).

  • Therefore containment atrrlospheric leakage was not included in the analysis.

I

'7

\\

GENE-637-042-1193

  • 3.1 Input Assumptions for B~hmark Case For the Benchmark case (Case 1 of Task 1), assumptions which are consistent.with those used in the original UFSAR analySis are used. This includes the use of May-Witt decay I
    • h~ (Reference 3), an initial suppf.ession pool temperature of90°F, no feed.water addition,
  • no pump heat and heat exchanger ~at removal rate of 84.5 million Btu/hr (referenced to a suppressio~ pooHo-service water ttemperature difference of 85°F). The basis for wing these inputs in the benchmark analfsis is given in the following:..

I May-Witt Decay Heat I

.1***

The UFSAR does riot identify the decay heat model~ in the* original analyses.

However, the Ma.y.:.Witt ~y

~model was used by GENE for containment analys~s in the time ft3me when the original tiFSAR analyse! were perfonned. In addition a review of I

available files provided strong evidence that the May.. Witt decay heat was used.in the

/.

  • original containnterit UFSAR analyses. Therefore, it is expected that.the May-Witt decay heat model was used.'

I

.. I.

An Initial.S¥ppression Pool Temp~ture of90°F '*

The reqUirements for the containnient cooling sYstein given in '.the* Dresden* Allxiliaiy...

Systems Data Book (Reference 6; for Unit '2 and.. ~

7 for Unit 3) include a

  • reqUirem~'that the inaximum po~l taJ1pera~* during normal op~tion be limited to*.,
'.90°F. Since References 6 and 7 WCJ'.C issued during the time frame pf the original tiFSAR '

~* analyses it~ expected mat an initiai pool temperature of90°F was ~secl.

I

. The UFSAR states in Section 6.2. hhat feedwatei addition was terminated ~t the ~e of the DBA-LOCA initiation. The pUrp0se of thiS assumption. as reported in the UFS~

. '.... was to maximize the short-term *cJntainment pressure response. There is no mention in UFSAR Section 6.2 th8t feedwate[ was.included in the long-term containment response analysiS. Additionally, during the time frame of the original UFSAR. analyses it was not.

I

. *common practice to include feed~ter in the *containment analyses. It is therefore

.. considered most likely that (eedwater was not included in the original 'OFSAR analysis.

I

. I I

1* *.:*(' ** :

-~ **.

.4,'

".t,

.* l.

  • 8. '

. *I

~*..

~637-042-1193 No Pump Heat I

It is stated in Section 6.2 of the UFSAR that pump heat for the LPCI/Containment *

. Cooling system pumps was incl~ed in the analysis.. ~owever, no mention is made of the pump heat contn"bution from the: Core Spray pumps. Since it is not certain how much pump heat was included in the original analysis, it was assumed that none was included.:

I.

LPCVContainment Cooling Sistpn Heat Exchanger Heat RemOYSl Rate of 276.1 Btur'F-sec The heat exchanger heat removal K-value used in the original analysis is not identified in the UFSAR. However, Mode C of the LPCI/Containment Cooling System Process Diagram (Reference 8) for the Dresden LPCJ/Containment Cooling,System gives a heat exchanger heat *removal rate of 84.5 million*Btu/sec with a suppression pool water inlet-

. to-service water inlet temperatu~e difference of 8SoP. This jS equivalent to a heat

.. I exchanger heat removal K-value. of276. I Btu/sec.°F. Mode C of the Process Diagram.

_ includes 1 LPCI/ContaiDmem ~oling pump and 1 CCSW pump and is shown as the

. _ limi:ting co~~

cooling cotjfiguration with resPect to maximum post-LOCA suppression pool temp~.orCY'F).*.

    • In addition, the containment coaling equipment spe~c:ation given in UFSAR. Table 6.2-7.

. shows a heat load of 1 os x 10 6 Btu/hr with a suppression pool water inlet-to-senijce water* inlet temperature differenee of 70°F for a lJICI/Containment Cooling Pump flovl" I

rate.of 10, 700 gpm and a CCSW pump flow rate of 7000 gpm. This heat load is

  • consistent with the heat load sb~Wn for.Mode B of the U'CJ/Contaimnent Cooling System Process Diagram for these pump flow rates. This shows consistency between the valu~
  • I of the heat exchanger heat load specified in the UFSAR and the values specified*in the LPCI/Containment Cooling System Process Diagram.
  • It is therefore expected that a heat exchanger heat removal K-value of276.1 Btu/sec-°F,

. specified for Mode C of the Proeess Diagram, wis used in the original UFSAR analysis for containlnent cooling configuration of 1 LPCJ/Containment Cooling pump and 1 CCSW'pump.*

  • 1..

I

.I

  • .,_, r. *.. **

9

Ci~37-042-1193 4.1 Inputs

  • The initial* conditions and k~ in~t parameters Used in the long-term containment pres~

I and temperature analysis are provided in Tables 4, 5 and 6. These are based on the current Dresden containment ~which was confirmed by CECo in Reference 9.

  • Appendix A provides the core d~y heat used in the analysis based on the May-Witt and
  • ANSVANS-5.1-1979 models.

I, I

  • . Reference 2 provided by CECo, bontains the LPCI/Containment Coolliig pump and I

I CCSW pump flow rateS and heat exchanger heat removal rates used for the analyses..

I perfonned with a configuration of 2 LPCL'Containment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW I

pumps for this report.

.,,,.,./

4.2 Industry Codes and Standkds I.

.... The ~re decay heat usecf for the ~nt~ent.anal}'Sis to update.the Dre~den UFSAR....

5)..

.. ~.

I 5.0 REGULA TORY REQuiREMENTs

.1 1.'

The ~ysis are performed ~

~ initial reaCtor thermal.power te\\tet o( 1 m% of the.

.. rated reactor thennal po~er, per Regulatory Guide 1.49.

  • Pertinent sections*of~he UFSAR Which are identified in this report are PFS~ Sections.

6.2* aitd 6.3.

. *-6.0 I

LIMITATIONS OF APPLICABILITY

  • The resul~ of the* analysis des~D:ed in this report are based on the inputs described in
  • .* Section 4.0.: ;Arr/. changes to thes~ inputs should be reviewed to determine the impact on 9' >

the resuhs and conclusions repo~ h=

~_.... *..

1 7

.10..

. ~ -.

I 7.0 CALCULATIONS AND f;<>MPUTER CODES 7.1 Calculation Record The calculations used for this repoit are documented in the GE Design Record File DRF T23--00717.

7.2 Model Description

.The GE computer code SHEX is~ to perfonn the analysis of the containment pressure arid temperature response. The SHEX code. has been validated in conformance With the I

requirements of the GE Engineerin~ Operating Procedures (EOPs). In addition, a

  • benchmark analysis to validate the p>de for a plailt-specific application to Dresden* was

.perfonned, which i~ included in~ report (see Task 1).

/

SHEX uses a coupled reactor pres5ure vessel and containment mod~ based on the

~ce 10 and Reference 11 models which have been reviewed and approved by the

  • NRC, to calculate the transient res}lonse of the containment during the LOCA This model performs.fluid mass and en~ balances on the reactor pnma* 5:... :-;*:T*:'.:.C'.. ~:nd the jc.1 suppression pool, and calculates tlie reactor vessel water I~ the reactor vessel pressure,.

the pressure and temperature in the diywell and suppression chamber airspace ~d the.

bulk suppression pool temperature!. The various modes of operation of all important

)

  • auxiliary systems, such as SRVs, the MSIVs, the ECCS, the RHll system (the I

LPCl/Contamment Cooling Syst~ When applied to Drmden) and feedwater; are modeled. The model can simulate !actions based on system setpoints, automatjc actions

  • and operator-initiated actions.
  • 7.3 Analysis Approach I

'The long-term containment pressure and temperature response is analyzed with the SHEX I

code for the DBA.;LOCA which iSi identified in the UFSAR as an instantaneous double-

. ended break of a recirculation suct,lon line. Several cases are perfonned to benchmark the SHEX code to the UFSAR and to;provide a basis for an update to the Dresden LPCIIContairunent Cooling system.

I

. I II

.J

Ci~37-042-1193 The following describes the GE ~ysis and the purpose of each case. Table 4 provides values of the key conuunment parameters coifunon to all cases in this report. Case-specific eontainnient input parameters for the different caises are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. Except as identified below 8.t\\d in Tables 5 and 6, the inP,ut values used in the analyses for this report are the same as previously used in the analysis d~ed in GENE-770-26-1092 (Reference 1 ).

I Task 1 SHEX Benchmark Aqalysis (~

1)

Case 1 I

-Purpose:

Task 1 consists ofa single c:aSe (Case 1) which is used to benchmark the SHEX code to the UFSAR analysis for a 1 LPCJYContainment Cooling System pump '&nd 1 Containment Cooling Seivice Water (CCS)V)pump configuration.

I

.. The benchmark analysis in c~ 1 uses the s;une inputs and assumptions a$. those ysed I

originally to analyze the* 1 LPiCIIContainment Cooling System pump ~d l Containment Cooling S~ce~ Water (CCSW) pump configuration for Case 4 in Section 6.2 of the UFSAR. The key inputs incliJde: an initial suppression pool temperature of90°F, no feedwater addition, no pump :heat for pumps taking suction from the suppression poo~

May-Witt decay heat and a U'CI/Containment Cooling heat exchanger heat removal K-

. value of276. i Btu/se~°F.,

I.

Task2 Sensitivity Studies (<Cases 2.1to2.5)

I The analyses in Task 2 quantified the sensitivity.of the peak suppression pool temperature to key I

analysis parameters which are different for Case 4 ofGENE-770-26-1092 and.the original UFSAR analysis..

I

12.

I

Jr CJ-ENE-637-042-1193 Case 2.1

Purpose:

Case 2.1 determines the effect of using ANS 5.1 decay heat instead of May-Witt decay heat.

on the UFSAR. DBA-LOCAlpeak suppress.ion pool temperature.

I Case

Description:

. I I.

Case 2.1 is perfonned with tJie inputs used for the UFSAR benchmark analysis of

. Case.1 ex~pt that ANS S. l rs used instead of May-Witt decay heat.

Case2.2.

.. Purpos.e: *

'I I

,,../*

. I

. Case 2.2 determines the effebt of using an initial suppression pool temperature of950f I

instead of 90°F on the UFSAR PBA-LOCA peak s\\ippression pool temperature.

Case

Description:

.Case 2.2 is performed wiili.ihe ~puts used for the uFSAR benchmark analysis of I

  • case 1 ~cept that an initial tmppression pool temperattire of95°F is*used~
  • I Case2.3

Purpose:

Case 2.3 is perfonned to deiermine the effect of including feedwater mass and energy on the UFSAR DBA-LOCA peak kippressionpool temperature.

Case

Description:

  • Case 2.3 is.Performed with the inpuis used for the UFSAR benchmark analysis of 13

......." i

ClENE-637-042-1193 Case 1 except that feedwater jmass and energy are included.

C4se2.4

Purpose:

I l

Case 2.4 detennmes the~ of including pump heat on the UFSAR DBA-LOCA peak *

  • suppression pool temperatun?.

I Case

Description:

I Case 2.4 is performed ~th.~e input.s used for the UFSAR benchmafk analysis of c8se l

. except that the full rated PU111P heat for one LPCI/Containment Cooling pump and one Core I

Spray pump is added to the ~essel-containment system.

I I

  • Case2.5 J

Purpose:

1

  • case.2.s*~the.4ofu$naa~*IK1/C~Cooqsys1em.h..t exchanger heat removal K-v'1ue on the UFSAR DBA-LOCA peak suppr~ion pool

. temp~re.... -~

I Case

Description:

i I

I

  • Case 2.5 is performed with the inputs used for the UFSAR benchmark analysfs of Case I I
  • ~cept that* a LPCJ/eontainfent Cooling System heat exchanger heat removal K-Value of 249.6 Btu/sec-°F is used instead of the value of 276.1 Btu/sec-°F used for Case 4 of *

. UFSAR Sectfon 6.2.

.. I Task3 I

I Design Basis Analysis for 2 LPCI/ Containment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW pumps I

Configuration (Case!J)

I I

I I.

I I

I I

I I

I I'

14

~-637-042-1193 Case3 Putpose:

Task 3 consists of a slligle case (Case 3) which can be used to establish the design basis long-tenn post-LC/::.\\. :::8ntah:m.;;nt pressure and temperature response for a containment. cooling configuration of 2 LPCJ!Containment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW pumps. For this case updated values of the CCSW flow rate and heat removal K-value are used which. were provided by CECo (Reference 2).

Case

Description:

  • The analysis of Case 3 of Task 3 uses the same inputs as lised for Case 3 of GENE-

. **.770-26-1092 except that the CCSW flow rate ~d the corresponding heat removal

  • K-value are updated with revised values provided by CECo in Reference 2'..
  • Task4.

Design Basis Analyses for NPSH Evaluation (Cases 4.1 & 4.2)

~.,.

  • ne analyses in Task 4 determines the peak suppression pool temperature. ~d suppression chamber preuure respoitse which can be used for evaluating available NPSH mlTgins for *
  • the LPCI/Containnl~t Cooling pumps and Core S~ray pumps, which take suction from*

the suppression pool during a DBA-LOCA.* *These result_s can be used in an update of the.*

  • Dresden NPSH evaluation in UFSAR Section 6.3 Case4.l The purpo~e of Case 4.1 is to obtain the suppression pool temperature and

. suppression chamber pressure which can be used to evaluate the available NPSH margins for a 1 LPCI/Containmerit Cooling pump - I CCSW pump configuration.

15.

.. ~. '

. G~37-042-1193 Case

Description:

Case 4.1 is a re-analysis of Case 4 of GENE-77~26-1092 with the exception.that initial conditions are used which minimize the containment pressure. Table 1 shows

.these initial conditions.

Additionally~ it is conservatively assumed that only 200/o of the break flow which does not flash achieves thermal equilil>rium with the fluids in

. the drywell. The rest flows directly to the suppression pool without any heat transferred to the drywell fluids. Because the liquid break flow is at a higher temperature than the drywell fluid, this minimizes the drywell temperature and, consequently~ the drywell and slippression chamber pressure.

Case4.,2

/*

Purpose:

... *The purpose of Case 4.2 is to obtain the suppression pool temperature and suppression chamber pressure which can be used to evaluate the available NPSH

.nwBins fora 2 LPCI/Containment Cooling pump*- 2 CCSW pump configuration.

Case Descripti~n:

Case 4.2 is a're-lnalysis.ofcUe 3 of Task 3, except that the initial conditions used.

  • for Case 4.1 and the assumption of partial heat transfer used for Case 4.1 are also used for Case 4.2, to minimize containment pressure (see Table I).

~. '

16

JAN 21 'r:l7 09:0BAM GE NUCLEAR ENERGY GENE-637-042-1193 8.0 Q/A RECORDS All work performed to produce this document IUld supporting background information is contained in the GE DesignRecord File DRF T23-00717.*

9.0 REFERENCES

1)

GENE-770-26-10~ "Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, LPCI/Containment Cooling System Evaluation," November 1992.

2)

Letter, T. A. Rieck (Nuclear Fuel Services Manager - CECo) 10 H. L. Massin (CECo), "Calculation ofLPCI HX Perfonnance at 212 Flow Conditions,"

December 13, 1993.

  • . 3)

NED0-10625, "Power Generation in a BWR Following N~_!'Dlal Shutdown or Loss-of-Coolant Accident Conditions, d March 1973.

4)

NED0-21052, qMaximum Discharge Rate of Uquid-Vapor Mixtures from Vessels,"

General Electric Company, September 1975.

5)

. "Dttay Heat Power in Llght*WaterReactors.'~ ANSI/ANS~ 5.1*- 1979, Approved by

6)

American National Standards Institute, August 29, 1979.

GE Report 257}iA.654, Dresden 2, h Auxiliaiy Systems Data Book," Rev. 3, April 15, 1969.

7)

, GE Report 257HA749, Dresden 3, "Auxiliary Systems Data Book," Rev. 3, April.

  • 15, 1969.*
8)

LPCI Containment Cooling System Process Diagram, GE Dwg. 729E583, Rev. 1, February 24, 1969.

9)

Letter, S. Mintz to S. Eldridge (CECo),

11Updated Basis for LPCVContairunent Cooling System Input Parameters for the LOCA Long-Tenn Containment Response Analyses.

  • .**nresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3~" Novembel' 23, 1993.

17

GENE-637-042-1193

10)

NEDM-10320,. The GE Pressure Suppression Containment System Analytical Model,"

March 1971.

  • 1.1)

NED0-20533, The General Electric Made m Pressure Suppression Containment System.

Analytical Model," June 1974.

../.

18

~-637-042-1193 TABLE l - RESULTS OF BENCHMARK CASE AND PARAMETRIC STUDIES IDcn:menlal.

Change in PclkPool PeakPool Teaapeq1ure Tempcrablre Rctamcto case De3cr:iDtion (OF)

Case 1 r'F) 1 SHEX-04 BENCHMARK.

180 N/A MAY*wrrTDEcAY HEAT INITIAL POOL TEMP""' 900f NO FEEDWATERADDED.

NO PUMP HEAT ADDED K=276.l BTU/SEC-Of

Z.l ANSS.l DECAY.HEAT 170

-10 I

2.2

~POOL TE.MP"" 95~

181

... +)

2.3 FEEDWATEll ADDED 182

+2.

  • 2.4 PUMP HEAT ADDED 182

-i-2 J

2.S K=249.6 B'IU/SE(:..OF 18S

+S /

GENE-770-

  • 1 LPCI/CONTAINMBNT COOLING 180

".0 26-1092 PUMP,~1 CCSW PUMP CASE 4 ANS 5.1 DECAY HEAT INITIAL POOL TEMP= 950Ji

"* FEEllWATER ADDm PUMP HEAT ADDED K=249.6 B1UJSEC-°F

.19

GE~-637-042-1193 TABLE 2 -

UPDATED CONTAINMENT RESPONSE FOR DRESDEN LPCl/CONf AINMENT COOLING SYSTEM No.of ConL Cooling Case*

Loo **

3 1

4 (of 1.

.. GENE-770-26-1092)

LPCll Containment Cooling Pumps Per 2

1

    • 1 Heat Exchanger per loop.

Total ll'C1./

Coot.

No.of Cooling cCsW PumpFlow

  • Pumps Per 10000 2

sooo I

ex ccsw PumpFlow 3500

/

/

Peak suppres.gon Pooll'cmp..

(@26380s)

. TABLE 3 -RESULTS OF CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS FORNPSHEVALUATIONS

.,.* 1 SuppreS&ion. '

Cbambe.r

. Pressure at Time of Peak Peak~l Pool Tempciatuic Temperatwe Case uescr:.. ~on (OF)

Cosiv 1':'

4.1 l LPCl/CONT.AINMENT COOLING 180 4.3 PuMP &. 1 CCSW PUMP (UFSAR CASE4) 4.2 2 LPCl/CONT AINMENT COOLING 167 3.7 PUMPS & 1 CCSW PUMPS (UFSAR.*

CASEJ).

Peak Long*

Tenn Supprei;gon *..

Chamber Ptessute

1*..

GENE~37-042-1193 Table 4-Input Parameters for Containment Analysis Value Used

f.arameter Units In ArwJysis
  • Core Thermal Power MWt 2578 Ve5sel Dome Pressure psia 1020 Drywell Free (Airspace} Volwne ft3 158236 (including vent syst.em)

Initial Suppression Chamber Free (Airspace) Volume Low.Water Level (LWL) ft3 120097

  • Initial Suppression Pool Volume Min. Water Level ft3 112000 No. ofDowncomers 96, Total Downcomer Flow Area
  • ft2 301.6 Initial Downcomer Submergence ft 3.67 Downcomer I.D.

ft 2.00 Vent System Flow Path Loss Coefficient

  • .(includes exit loss),

S.17 Supp. Clwnber (Torus) ~or Radius ft 54.50 Supp~ Chamber (Torus) :Minor Radjus ft.

.'15.00

  • Suppression Pool Sur&ce Area ftl 997~.4 (in contact with.suppression chamber.

airspace) 21

GENE-637-042-1193 Table 4 - Input Parameters for Containment Analysis (continued)

Value Used faramett!

!lnili in Analysis Suppression Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breaker Opening Dift: Press.

- start psid 0.15

-twi'open psid 0.5 Supp. Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breaker Valve Opening Tune sec 1.0 Supp. Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum ft2

,Breaker Flow Area (per valve l.14 assembly).

Supp. Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum

  • Breaker Flow Loss Coefficient f mcluding e>dt loss)

, 3.47 No. of Supp. Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breaker Valve Assemblies

  • (2 valves per assembly) 6 LPCI/Containment Cooling Heat *
  • Exchanger K in Containment Cooling Mode Btu/sec.oP.

SeeTable5

LPCI/Containrnent Cooling Service 95

~

~

~

~ '

f

. -. ~...

. Water Temperature ~

LPCI/Contairunent Cooling Pwnp Heat (per pump).

Core Spray Pwnp Heat (per pump)

Time for Operator to Tum On

. LPCI/Contaimnent Cooling System in Containment Cooling Mode (after LQCA signal) hp 700 hp 800 sec 600 F

. ~ -

.CiE?'IIE-637-042-1193 Table 4 - Input Parameters for Containment Aiialysis (continued)

Feedwater Addition (to RPV after start of event; mass

,and energy)

Feedwater Mass' Enthalpy*

Node**

ml

(.Btu/lbm) 1 34658 308.0 2

96419 289.2 3

145651 2.68.7 4

91600 219.8 s

  • 6S072.

188.4 Includes sensible heat.from the feedwater system piping met81. * *

  • F eedwater mass and energy data combined to fit into 5 nodes (or use in the analysis.

//

23.

I*.

J CiENE-637-042-1193 Table 5-LPCI/Containment Cooling System Parameten for Containment An8lysis Total LPCI/

LPC'I/

Containment Containment No.

Cooling Cooling of Total HX No.of Pumps Flow ccsw.

ccsw Pump K

~

Loops*

  • PerLoop

.Cgpm>

lump.s Flow(gpml (Btu/s-°F)

  • l I

1 5,000.

1 3,SOO 276.1 2.1 1

1

.. S,000 1

  • 3,500 276.1

. 2.2 1

I 5,000 1

3,500 276.1 2.3 1

1 5,000

.. 1 3,500 276.I 2.4 1

1 5,000 1

3,500 276.1 2.5 l

I 5,000 1

/

3,500 249.6

  • 3 1

2 10,000 2

6,000.

365.2*~*

4.1.

' 1 1

5,000 1

.3,500 249.6 4.2

.. I 2

10,000

  • 2 6,000 365.2**
  • .one heat exchanger.per loop
    • . (Reference 2).

L >

~

~

.. -~ ~ :_*:*:,.. :,.. :..:.

24

~.

0~37-042-1193 TABLE6 KEY PARAMETERS FOR CONTAlNMBNT ANALYSIS CASEl CASE2.1 CASE2.2 CASE2.3 CASE2.4 CASB2.S DECAY HEAT May-Wlu May-Will Ml.y-Witt Ma)-W'lli

~W'*

MOD BL 1NlTIAL 90 90 ll 90

. 90

90.

SUPPRESSION * *

  • POOL

'IEMPERATIJRB (Of)

. liEEDWA TER No No No.

  • ~

No

  • No.

ADDED PUMP HEAT*.

No No No No

.XSI No ADDED

/

. 249.6 HEA'l;' EXCHANGER

,276.l 276.l 276.l 276.l 276.l K*VALUE

. (BTU/SEC-°F)

e:

lNITIAL DR.YWELL lS.95 1S.9S 1S.9S IS.9S 1S.9S 1S.9S

. PRESSURE (PSIA)

INITIAL*

  • SUPPRESSION

. CHAMBER.PRESSURE

. * (PSlA)

. INITIAL DRYWEl.L

. 135.

13S 135.

l3S 135 135 TEMPERAn.mE

  • "~

INlTIAL DR.YWELL 10

.20 20 20 20.

20 RELATIVE HUMIDITY

.. (°Ai)

INITIAL SUPPRESSION 100

. 100 100 100 100 100 ChAMBER. RELATIVE.

HUMIDITY(%)

  • .HEAT TRANSFER 100 100 100 100' 100 100

. BETWEEN NON-FLASHING BREAK.UQUID AND DR.YWBIL FLUID C°Ai)

. tt**

  • Changes to the Benchmark case (Case 1) ror the sensitivity &tudies are underlined.

. ~:.,.

GENE-637-042-1193 TABLE 6 (CONTJNU£0)

KEY PARAMETERS FOR CONTAINMENT.ANALYSIS DECAY HEAT MODEL "IN111AL SUPPRESSION

  • .l'OOL TEMPERATURE ffi FEEDWATER ADDEO PUMP HEAT

. ADDED HEAT EXCHANGER K-VALUE (BTIJ/SEC-°F)

-INmAL DRY'WELL PRESSURE (PSIA) lN111AL SUPPRESSlON.

CHAMBER PlU:SSURE (PSIA)

INITIAL DRYWELL

. *TEMPERA.llJRE

~

lNlTIAL DR.YWELL RELA11VE HUMIDITY

{°Ai) lNlTIAL SUPPRESSION

  • CHAMaER. RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)

HEAT TRANSFER BETWEEN NON-FLASHING BREAK LIQUID ANO DRYWELL Fi..UID (%)

CASE3 ANS5.J 9S Yes Yes 14.SS

.135 20 100 100

  • CASE.4.1 CASE4.2 ANS1.1 ANSS.1 95 95
  • Yes Yes Yes 249.6 36SJ.**

lSO lSO 100 JOO 100 100 20 20

'*Minimum opetating pressure ~in Table B. l of GENB-770-26--1092, which was pt£Viously prOVided by

  • CECo..
    • Reference 2
26.

.I

,1.

. I I.

~*i---.

~

~.

\\

too 1000 10,000

. TIME (SEC).

Figure J - Long-Tenn DBA*LOCA Suppression Pool Temperature Response for UFSAR Case 4 Bench Mark. (Case 1 of Task l)

  • 100,000

I..

. 300. -"-*-------* _____..._ ____________...--________ _:._.._

  • ~

1 SUPPRESSION POOL l SUPPRESSION OIAMBER AIRSPACE.

. 200.*~-~-----*-~--~---~1--------~

I

~i----

--L*---

100. ------------t-------------*t-----------~-------------~~-----~*--

10 100 lOOO 10,000 100,000

..TIME (SEC).

Figure *2*- Long-Term DBA-LOCA Suppression Pool aitd Suppression Chamber Airspace Temperature Response

. (Case 3 of TJSk 3)

i.. _

  • ..1

~

I

    • ~*-. :.... ~
I

.. :>; *... ~~.

  • )
*1;;.

N

\\0

    • 1**

~*

I 60.r---*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~JD-R-~~~L~~~~---~-~-

l SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE.

ilO~

.I 2

I
20.,_

o *.

10 100.

IOOO 10,000 100.000

  • T~($EC)

Figure 3 - Long-T~rm DBA-LOCA Ory\\\\rell and Suppression Chamber Airspac.e Pressure Response.

(Case 3 of Task 3)

~

. tr I

0

.~

  • ~

I,..

I

~.**

' ~

. 1.....

-~

  • '".J***

'*1*

.*.. ~

. *mo: r--------....--_..;...~---'---.---.;.____;_ __

__;_-r-_____

.. J

' \\

\\,

100.. ~------......._ _____

..;___.L_ ____

__Ji__ ______

J___:Sll£~l*IJll

-l 10 100 1000 TIMB(SEC)

Figuce

  • 4 - Long-Tetm DBA-LOCA Drywell Temperatute Response.
  • (Caae 3 of Task l).

l0,000

. 100,000

~

I

~

\\,,.)

.*:*.~*

=, ~

. 300.

  • ~.

200.

100. --

~

0.

10 100.

I I SUPPRESSJON POOL 2 SUPPRESSJON CHAMBER AIRSPACE i

! i

~ l

      • ~

i 2

. 1~

/

' \\

ffX-o.i

-3 1000

)0,000 100,000 TJME(SHC)

  • Figure S - Long-Term DBA-LOCA Suppression Pool and Suppression Chamber Airspace Temperature Response (case 4.1 of Task 4).

. )

. I***..

. llQ,

. 20. --

o.
  • 10 I

.\\

'iir:,..,.,.2 100

)()00

. TIME (SEC)

J DRYWEU.

2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE

.7

  • C:

I

  • . Sllfl-IJll 10,000 100,000 Figure* 6 -Long-Tenri DBA-LOCA Drywell and Suppression Chamber Airspace.Pressure Response.

(Case 4. I of Task 4)

~

~

N

~

6l w..

I-**

I-' !i

~

7.. c

()

r

~

~-

u G)

~

I 0\\

w

~

~

N I -

IO w

-3

I

(£ w w 300.

200.

SHE 1-01'

-J 100 ~L10-.__,..~~_:..._--~-l.JO-O~~~~-----ll.0_0_0~~~~----~1~0.-ooo-----:--~~~7i~oo-.o~oo-=--=-~---

TIMa(~EC).

Figure.-7~: Long".term DBA-LOCA Drywell Temperature Response.

  • ,(Case 4.1 of Task 4) *

.J:'

,l I

- ' t:::I

.~-

I w:*

~* *'

--~

/..

,\\

I SUPPRESSION POOL.

2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE

,2 o.--~~~----~-a..---------~--~_._~----~~----'--~-----------L.~-til~-~~~~-';__

  • 10 IOO JOOO 10.000 100,000 TlMB(SEC).

Figure 8

  • Long-Term DBA-LOCA Suppression Pool and Suppression Chamber Airspace Temperature Response (Case 4.2 of Task 4)

.*. 60 *.-------'--.--_..;..-----.-----------.r--------,..-----

--.--** --*-* --- *- ~!!*

w

~

ua.. i

20.
0.

1DRYWELL 2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE

_ _. _____ -----~---.. --* --

\\

2 51EMl11

-!I JO 100 1000 l0,000 100,000 TIMB(SEC) fjgure 9 - Long Term DBA-LOCA D.ywell and Suppression Chamber Aimpace Pressure Response.

(Case 4.2 of Task 4)

';Lt'.:

r '

  • ~ : ***

~

.. )

. /'

'* ** ;*, ** r

. t.

~

.,i, I

  • .: r ' : " ' :-'~1.' ',. *,*

~

i J. ~ -

t' ' **

.-,.:,"r**.:.*;.

\\

  • J 'I

,1,,

I 100

. 1000

~($EC)

Figure 10 - Long. Term DBA-LOCA Drywell.Temperature Response.

(Case 4.2 of Task 4) l

~

I

~

I ---

~

10,000 100,000

J 10.0 I *

~-

APPENDICES A.

CORB HEAT DATA.

i

-:.: : "' ~-...

~""'-.

'1 _~:~.. ~--~: **

.. r

.I I

f "I

  • 1 1* -*

~* I

<lBl'lE-637-042-1193 37

/

/

GBNB-637-042-1193 I

APPENDIXA I

COREDBCAYHBATDATA I

I I

Table A. l provides the core heat q:ttu1sec) based on the May-Witt (.Reference A.2). decay

  • heat model used for Cues.I. 2.2, +.3, 2.4 and 2.S of Section 7.0. The oore heat includes

.... decay heat (May-Witt), metal-~ reaction energy, fission power and fhel relaxation energy. The core heat in Table A: 1 is nannaliz;ed to the initial core thermal power of 2518MWt.

I Table A.2 provides the core heat Q)~sec) based on the ANS S.1 (ReferenCe Al) decay*

' heat model used for Cases 2.1~ 3, 4.1 and 4.2 of' Section 7.0. The core heat includes decay heat (ANS S.1-1979), m~water reaction energy, tlssion power and fbel relaxation energy. The core heat 'n Table A.2 is normalized to the initial core.thermal powero~2S78 MWt.

I

.. Appendix A I"~ferences:

I

/*

I I

. ir*

.* 2)

': 2 *.

  • I
  • ~*

~

NED0_.1062S,. "Power G$eration in a BWR PolloWing Normal Slmtdown or

  • I
  • . Loss-Of-O>olant Accident! Conditions,* March 1973,. *

. I

  • I "DeCay Heai Power in Li&iht Water Reactors, a ANSVANS-S. l ~ 1979, Approved by Amen.can National sia+dards Instituie, AusUst 29, 1979.

.I*.

,I

~-.

I !..

.. I*,*

i.

-.i.-..

-~.-'....--' -.. *..

I.

. i

...,,£_**. _...

.... ~.

~*

I',

f'.

I*

  • Core Heat (normalized to the initial.core thennaJ power of2S18 MWt)
    • = decay. heat+ fisslon po~+ fbel relaxation energy+ metal-water reaction eneriY *
    • Metal-water reaction heat is ljasumed to end at 120 seconds.

I

    • ~
  • ~.*
~*~.
  • ~..

CJE;NE-637-042-1193 TABLE ~.2 -CORE HBAT ANS S.1 I

T"une (sec)'.

Core Heat*

0.0 1.0078 0.1

.. 9976 0.2

.9694 0.6

.7404 0.8

,6907 1.0

,5802 2.0 i

.S480 3.0

.5852 4.0

.S1SS 6,0

.5401' 8.0 i

.4637

..,JO.

I*

.3771

20.

I

.08192

30.

I

.06405 I

40.

.04697

/

60.

.042"ll*/

80.

~04064

. 100.

.03925

  • I

. "120~

I

.03815 12L**'.... * '.i

'.03033

  • I 200.

I..

.02752' 600.

I

.02212 1000.

.01956

  • .~2000.

. I

.01599 I

  • 4000.

.01273 7800.

. *I

  • .. * :01033

. 1. '"

10200:

. I

.01012

.20400. l'

. ;001491 39600.

.007060

.61200.

.006306 i

  • I I

. ~..,....,. *core Heat (no~

to the initial core thermal power of2S78 MWt)..

.... :.. *. *...: *. * = decay heat_+.fission po~er + fuel relaXation energy + metal-water reaction energy

  • ~.. * * ** Metal-water reaetion heat is llssumed to end at 120 seconds.,.

.. "'.~*"'..

I

~-. '*

-~,. -

. *: :.--,~.:

.. ~.. ~

~ *.'. *.

'*~'

- : ~-

~ _,..

-~

,1*., :*-*.

,. * :,* Reference 13 *

/

.*> :-~**:-~GgNE-770~26;;;10~2 *-:-* Dresde~. Nu~lear

  • Power Station
  • units* '>2: and****3*
  • LPCI/Coritaiiurient
  • Coolirig.System

'. ::Evaluation dated November 1992...

~.......

J-,,..:;.L.."

'.. --~-

.1 r*.. * ~'-.

.s. ** -':1

.... ~ -,, I

'1. :.

  • C *
  • ~*,.

~.

J

,';\\

    • "(

~... *'

1;.

.*:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17187A804&oldid=5131756"