Text

Summary of 970116 Meeting W/Util Re Emergency Technical Specification Change Requesting Use of Containment Over Pressure to Compensate for Net Positive Suction Head Deficiency for Emergency Core Cooling Pump
	ML17187A836
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	03/05/1997
From:	Stang J; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
	NUDOCS 9703070103
	Download: ML17187A836 (86)
	v • d • e

. March 5, 19.97 LICENSEE:

Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd)

FACILITIES:

Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF THE MEETING CONCERNING THE EMERGENCY TECHNICAL

sPEC.FICATION CHANGE REQUESTING THE USE OF CONTAINMENT OVER PRESSURE TO COMPENSATE FOR A NET POSITIVE SUCTION HEAD DEFICIENCY.

FOR.THE EMERGENCY CORE COOLI~G PUMPS On Janua.ry H>, 1997 *. *the staff me.t with ComEd to discus.s an emergency Technical Specifi~ation (TS) change involvin~ the use of-containment over pressure to make up for a deficiency in net.positive suction head (NPSH) of the Jm~rgency ~ore Cooling Pumps (ECCS).

A list..

of attel')dees. *i ~. provfded as*

En.cl o~ure 1.

OFC NAME DATE The objeciive of *the meeting was to disiu~s the lice~see'~ response to th~

staff's Janu*ar,Y: 15,," 19~7, *;request for *additional informatfon (RAI).

The* major to pi cs di scu~s~d 'were J:he-!NPSH ca lcul at ions, containment over pressuf'..e*

an(lly.si~.iind EQCS~~u~p* d~itation 'issues: A copy of the ljcensee's pr*esentat ion* is' itfcl uded as Enclosure 2.

J.* Roe(JWR)'.

.J: Stang CJFS2)*

C~. Moore(ACM)

D. RossCSAM) *

. H. Oa~son (HFD). K. Dempsey CKCD) *,.

D:P03-2

~CAPRA Aµ/

03

/97 03/ 5* /97

i pr:-01,I, OFFICIAL RECORD COPY..

11~ Rf cemm ctmPW

\\

9703070103 6§838~37

~DR ADOCK PDR

cc:

Ms. I. Johnson Acting Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Services Conmonwealth Edison Company Executive Towers West Ill 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Michael I. Miller, Esquire Sidley and Austin One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Site Vice President Dresden Nuclear Power Station 6500 North Dresden Road

Morris, Illinois 60450-9765 Station Manager Dresden Nuclear Power Station 6500 North Dresden Road Morris, Illinois 60450-9765 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office Dresden Station 6500 North Dresden Road Morris, Illinois 60450-9766 Regional Administrator U.S. NRC, Region III J

801 Warrenville Road

)

Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704 Chainnan Grundy County Board Administration Building 1320 Union Street Morris, Illinois 60450 Document Control Desk-Licensing Conmonwealth Edison Company 1400 Opus Place, Suite 400 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3

. /

~

Robert Capra John Stang Robert Pu 1 s 1 fer,

Kerri Kavanagh Jack Dawson Ken Dempsey Jack Kudrick Co!Il!lonwealth Edison Bob Rybak Ross Freeman Linda Weir Harry Palas Kevin Ramsden Frank Spangenberg STS. Inc.

Ted Heatherly LIST OF MEETING ATTENDEES JANUARY 16, 1997

LICENSEE'S PRESENTATION REc'D W/LTR DTD 03/05/97... :9703070103

- NOTICE -

THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE INFORMATION &

RECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH.

THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TOYOU FOR A LIMITED TIME PERIOD AND MUSTBERETURNEDTOTHE RECORDS & ARCHIVES SERVICES SECTION, TS C3. PLEASE DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTS CHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVAL OF ANY PAGE(S) FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE REFERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL.

- NOTIC'E -

The Use of Containment Overpressure in NPSH Calculations for Dresden/Quad Cities Stations.

Introduction Recent engineering efforts involved in the 5upport of containment strainer replacement modifications, as well as inquiries received during the Dresden ISi have resulted in.new information as well as new concerns regarding NPSH calculations for ECCS pumps during LOCA events. Specifically, the following items have become concerns:

I) Review of Marie I strainer modification documents for QC and Dresden have revealed that the differeiitial pressure that would be expected at design flow rates is approximately 5.8 feet, vs the I foot value shown on the original containment drawings and used in support of ECCS pump NPSH predictions.

2) ISi questions raised concern regarding the NP$H performance ofECCS pumps during the initial phase of a LOCA, since the pumps would be expected to be operating at or near run out conditions following vessel depressuri.zation, and would not be throttled by operator actions until I 0 minutes into the event.

There are a number of issues specifically regarding Dresden LPCl/CCSW pump and heat exchanger performance that require reconstitution of the containment analysis to resolve.* This effort has been in progress for several months, with a significant analytical basis nearing completion. Licensing amendments are in preparation to document the new analysis and benchmarks to allow replacement of the existing analysis.

The purpose of this submittal is to document the justification for the use of containms:nt overpressure in current NPSH evaluations. IOCFRS0.59 evaluations of the above concerns have de~rmined that an unresolved safety question (USQ) exists specifically regarding the use of overpresstire in these evaluations at Dresden. For Dresden, the question is whether any overpressure cari be applied. Quad Cities is still performing a IOCFRS0.59 evaluation and has not concluded whether or not an USQ exists at this time.

Description of Post-LOCA Plant Response

Both Dresden 2/3 and Quad Cities 112..are BWR 3/4 designs with Mark I containment systems. The limiting design basis accident with respect to containment thermal response is the DBA LOCA, which is a double ended break of a recirculation system suction pipe. This event yields a rapid vessel depressurization, fuel uncovery and places maximum demands on the ECCS systems. Following the blowdown, the vessel is reflooded to approximately two thirds core height due to injection by the Low pressure coolant injection (LPCl/RHR) and Core Spray (CS) pumps. At the I 0 minute time frame, the operators are trained to initiate suppression pool cooling. For the limiting case of LOOP plus failure of a DIG, this would lead to one CS pump maintaining vessel level, one LPCl/RHR pump in the pool cooling mode, and 2 containment cooling service water pumps (CCSW) supplying the LPCI HX. For Quad Cities, only one service water pump would be started in this condition due to the higher horsepower requirements

of their RHRSW pumps and limitations imposed by diesel loading capacity. The ECCS system performance, containment parameters, core power, and containment heat exchanger performance are essentially identical between the plants. Key parameters are shown in Table I.

ENCLOSURE 2

Containment Pressure Response This event yields a rapid contaiiiment pressure rise initially due to the transport of non-condensibles from the drywell to the wetwell, and achieves a peak drywell pressure early in the event due to the differential JX1:SSure developed across the vent header system. The initial suppression pool heatup is approximately 50 F due to the effects of the blowdown and pool temperatures of approximately 150F are expected at 10 minutes into the event. The suppression pool temperature would contiliue to rise until the heat load of the containment cooling heat exchanger matched the heat input to the containment due to decay heat, latent beat from the vessel, feedwater addition, and pump beat. This occurs between 3 to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, depending OD the availability of pumps for containment cooling. Maxiinum temperatures reached range from 163 F for a "complete" pool cooling complement (2 LPCl/2 CCSW) to 179 F for a "minimum" case of 1 LPCl/I CCSW. Dresden's current design basis peak suppression pool temperature is 170 F for a 1 LPCl/2 CCSW pump Configuration.

The pressure response of the drywell and wetwell are coupled over the long term, and are dependent on a number of factors. The key (actors determining this response are:

I. Mixing fraction of fluid spilling from the break with drywell atmosphere. This affects the short tenn pressure response since the break fluid rapidly becomes subcooled following reflood, and would act to redtice pressure drywell pressure by condensing steam.

2. Manual lnitiatitin of Contairunent Spray. This has a dominant effect on the pressure response of the coupled system. Initiation of containment spray in the I 0 minute time frame would lead to rapid quench of steam in the drywell and return of non-condensibles to the drywell via the vacuum breakers. This reduces the system pressure and effectively sets the temperature of both the drywell and the wetwell airspace. In the Jong term, the spray temperature in the wetwell airspace effectively detennines the contairunent pressure response.

3. Heat transfer to contairunent liner. This affects the short term pressure by condensing more steam in the drywell. It tends to have minor effect on the long term response, being overwhelmed by the action of containment spray. (Containment beat sinks have historically been ignored in BWR contairunent calculations).

4. Initial conditions in containment. The initial conditions of temperature and particularly relative humidity set the total non-condensible inventory. High initial temperatures and humidity lead to the lowest non-condensible inventory, and have' dramatic effect on the long term pressure response of the system.

5. Containment Cooling flow rates. The flow rates ofLPCl/RHR and CCSW determine the effectiveness of the heat exchanger, which determines the peak pool temeperature achieved. In addition, the flow rates determine ~e spray temperature, which has a direct impact on the contairunent pressure.

Description of New Calculations As indicated above, a series of new contairunent calculations has been performed for Dresden to address a number of design basis issues. These calculations were performed by General Electric, using the SHEX computer code. A number of cases were performed to identify the limiting scenario, relative to ECCS NPSH calculations, selected based on reaching the maximum pool temperature with lowest containment pressure. The new calculations are based on ANS 5.1-1979 decay heat standards and include all appropriate heat sources including FW niass energy and ECCS pump heat. In addition, the new analyses employed assumptions consistent with NRC Information Notice 96-55, specifically addressing the addition of heat sinks. The new contairunent calculations employ a methodology that is.intended to provide the lowest pressure in the Jong term. These include:

~. *

1. Minimizing the non-condensibles present at initiation of event.

2. Initiating containment spray at 10 minutes and continuing for duration of event.

3. Including the effects of beat conduction to containment surfaces, basCd on Branch Technical position CSB 6-1.

4. Use of bounding values for drywell mixing ratio, to predict the lowest pressures both in the short teJTil as well as the long term.

S. Calculation of variety ofECCS flow rates and pump combinations to ensure that the potential range of ECCS flows has been bounded.

Results of New Calculations When combined with previous analyses perfo1TI1ed for both Dresden and Quad Cities, a clear picture of the most limiting NPSH scenarios results. Some of the key results identified are:

1. The scenarios that employ a single LPCI in conjunction with two CCSW pumps yield the highest suppression pool temperatures with the lowest containment pressures. Previous studies were based on 212 or Ill combinatioos, and achieved higher pressures, even with lower suppression pool temperatures.

2. The coupled analyses demonstrate that at suppression pool temperatures of 171 For greater, at least 2.9 psig overpressure is available.

3. The containment pressure during the short term, (eg. first 10 minutes) has been d-roonstrated to be at least 5.5 psig, even with worst case assumptions applied.

. 4. While different decay heat standards and heat exchanger performance predictions are applied in the new calculations, the peak containment temperatures being predicted are consistent with and fall near the original design basis temperature predictions. The pressure response is not a function of decay heat models, but is primarily only effected by the pool temperature and heat exchanger performance.

A comparison calculation of containment long term pressure bas.ed on ideal gas law models was also generated to confinn that the trend ~

overall results predicted by the new containment analyses is appropriate. This calculation supports the conclusions that the 1/2 cases will provide bounding pressure response as well as demonstrating that the GE calculations are yielding conservatively low values of containment pressure, relative to the suppression pool temperature predicted. This calculation is attached as an appendix to this document. These analyses were required to be performed in order to minimize pressure in the suppression pool. The data required to support the existing design basis of Dresden and Quad Cities is not available and therefore, the new data must be utilized. The existing containment responses for Dresden and Quad Cities will remain until they are further amended. Dresden is preparing a submittal that will change its Design Basis Containment Response. This submittal should be prepar~d by January 24, 1996.

Conclusions Based on the results of new calculations, it is clear that significant containment overpressure conditions would exist, both in the short term (<10 minutes) as well as the long term post-LOCA period. The new calculations have been performed to minimize the extent of overpressure that would exist in both periods, and support the conclusion that overpressure would be available and can be employed to demonstrate adequate ECCS NPSH performance.

While the new containment calculations have not been reviewed and approved by NRC to date, they are more appropriate with respect to.the prediction of minimum containment pressure both in the long and short tenn post-LOCA periods, than are the-original design basis calculations. They result in peak pool temperatures near to but slightly above the original calculated values, and predict containment overpressures of several psi, even with the incorjx>ration of currently recommended analysis assumptions to minimize overpressure. Therefore, the conceptual use of containment overpressures in the ranges indicated in the new analyses appears warranted ui the performance of ECCS NJ>SH calculations.*

Table 1. Comparison of Key Containment Parameters for Dresden and Quad Cities Equipment/Parameter Dresden 2/3 Quad Cities 112 Core Licensed Power 2527MWT 2511 MWT LPCl/RHR pump flow rate 4500 gpm rated 4500 gpm rated CS pump flow rate 4500 gpm rated 450~ gpm rated CCSW/RHRSW pump flow 3500 gpm/pump 3500 gpmlpump

LPCl/RHR HX original design 105 MBTU at 10700 gpm LPCI/

l OS MBTIJ at 10700 gpm RHR/

condition 7000 gpm CCSW l 6SF pool

7000 gpm RHRSW 16SF pool 95 F service water side 95 F service water side Drywell Free Volume 158236 cuft 158236 cuft Wetwell Free Volume 120097 cuft 119963 cuft Wetwell Water Volume 112000 cuft 111500 cuft

Calculation Title Page Calculation No.: DR~97-0002 Page 1 of 11 Iii Safety Related 0 Regulatory Related 0 ;Non-Safety Related Calculation

Title:

i.

{.

Dresden LPCl/Core Spray NPSl'.'i Analysis I

Post-OBA LOCA: GE SIL 151 Case Short-Term Station/Unit: Dresden Units 2 and 3 System Abbreviation: LPCl/CS

Equipment No.: 2(3 l-1502A/B/C/D Project No.:

2(3}-1401A/B Rev: 0 Status:

QA Serial# or CHRON # -

NA

. Date:

,a

~

H 11/ll.Y Piil.A s

!/g/97 Prepared by:

1

-~

Date:

I v

Revision Summary:

Electronic Calculation Data Files Revised:

l RING.PLL 4L512C58.PLU RING.PLU 4L512C55.PLU 4L512C50.PLU Do any assumptions in this calculation require later verification?

OYes l&1 No Reviewed by: * ~~ W. ~

Date: 1/r/J1

(/

Review Method: ~~A 1 LE:-!>

RE.V 1 f:i.l..J Comments (C, NC or Cl): #l Approved by:~,,..,\\...

~

I'&

l..

Date:! /9/7 7

Calculation Revision Page Calculation No.: DRE96-0002 Page 2 of 11 Rev: 0 Status:

QA Serial #or CHRON #

NA Date:

Prepared by:

Date:

Revision Summary:

Electronic Calculation Data Files Revised:

-~

_.J Do aPv a5sumptions in this calculation require later verification?

DYes DNo

~:-***-..

Reviewed by:

Date:

Review Method:

Comments {C, NC or Cl):

Approved by:

Date:

~*

y Table of Contents Calculation No.: DRE96-0002 Description Title Page Revision Summ~ry Table of Contents Purpose~Objective Methodology and Acceptance Criteria Assumptions Design Inputs References Calculations Summary and Conclusions Figures Attachment A: LPCl/Core Spray Suction Friction Losses FLO-SERIES Model (11 pages)

Rev. O Page 3 of 11 Page No.

Sub-Page No.

1 2

3 4

4 5

7 8

9 10 11 A1

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0002 REV. 0 PAGE 4 1.0 PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

. This calculation examines the Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) available to the Dresden LPCI and Core Spray (CS) pumps in the first 600 seconds following a DBA-LOCA Specifically, the GE SIL 151 case will be evaluated, which postuiates a failure of the LPCI Loop Select logic. This case is bounding since it results in all 4 LPCI and 2 CS pumps operating at above rated flows

(maximizing pump suction losses), with the LPCI pumps injecting into a broken reactor recirculation loop (minimizing flow to reactor for Peak Clad Temperature considerations). Due to the high flows anticipated, the Core Spray pumps may cavitate, resulting in reduced system flow.

This. reduced flow will be calculated and compared to the minimum *flow required of the CS system. This calculation will be performed using a reduced initial toros temperature of 75°F and a torus pressure of 2 psig. The results of this calcul~on will be used ti'..* support a Dresden Exigent License Arilendment.

2.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The minimum *suppression pool pressure required to satisfy LPCI and CS pump NPSH requirements will be determined under short-term post-LOCA conditions. If the pool pressure required is greater than the. pressure available, then the potential exists for the pumps to cavitate, resulting in reduced flows. A minimum Core Spray system flow of 10,552 gpm (5276 gpm per pump) is required for the first 200 seconds post-accident to ensure~ Peak Clad Temperature *

(PCT) remains below 2200°F, while a nominal Core Spray flow of' 4500 gpm per pump is acceptable beyond 200 seconds (Ref. 19)..

NPSH Required (NPSHR) curves for the LPCl/CS pumps are provided on the original vendor pump curves (Refs. 12, 13). These NPSHR curves represent the point at which a 3% reduction in pump developed head has occurred. Cavitation tests* were performed on this pump model by the vendor at various flow rates (Ref 16). The test data indicates* that the pump remains stable for several feet below the NPSHR"Value, which is expected, before the pump head collapses (full cavitation). Based on the flow rates at which the pumps were tested, it is possible to develop a reduced NPSHR curve that represents the point at which full cavitation has been achieved~ ~

shown in Figure 1 (Refs. 17, 18). Thus, give!--~* --wn set of conditions (temperature, pressure, level), the reduced flows at which the pumps will Of...;rate cari be determined as follows:

1. Assume initial operating pump flow rate (maximum pump flow).

2. Determine the suppression pool pressure required to satisfy the pump's reduced NPSH requirements (Fig. 1) using the assumed pump flow and the expected torus temperature at 200 seconds post-LOCA (Ref. 1 ).

3. Reduce pump *flow estimate until the pool pressure required equals the minimum pool pressure available (Assumption 5). It is at this flow that the pump will be in full cavitation and the total developed head (TDH) will drop off. Since this drop-off is essentially vertical, the pump curve will intersect the system curve at this flow, i.e., this is the flow at which the syst_em will operate.

,J'

~.

I CALCULATION NO *. DRE97-0002 REV. 0 PAGE 5 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS

1. LPCl/CS pump fiiction losses (excluding strainer losses) were developed for a single flow case using a FLO-: SERIES model of the Dresden ECCS ring header and pump suction piping (Ref.

5). This model was then run at the various LPCl/CS pump combinations arid flows a5 required

. to support the cases. evaluated in this calculation (Attachment A). The model that was developed uses clean, eommercial steel pipe. In order to compensate for the increased loss due to the.effects of aging, the resulting fiiction losses from the model were increased by 15%. This is consistent with discussions provided in References 14 and 15.

2. To 11,ccount for strainer plugging, one of the four torus strainers is assumed 100% blocked, while the remaining three strainers Ire assumed clean. While

the torus strainers are not included in the FLO-SERIES model discussed in Assumption 1, blocking a strainer translates *

to blocking a torus-to-ring header entrance leg. This is accomplished in the model by closing one of the torus legs (Torus 1-4). Based on previous sensitivity analyses, Torus-4 is chosen for maximum effect on LPCI and Core Spray suction losses.

3. Reference 3 developed LPCI system resistance curves and expected maximum operating flows for Unit 2. ~t is assumed that the Unit 3 results are similar based on identical pumps and elevations, and similar discharge piping layouts.

4. Reference 2 developed Core Spray system resistance curves and ex}iected maximum operating flows utilizing actual Core Spray pump petformance. F.or the Core Spray loop with the least system resistance, the

original vendor pump curve *was plotted with the system curve developed in Reference 2..The operating point was determined to be the same as that developed in the calculation. Therefore, the maximum Core Spray system flow of 5800 gpm

. used in Design Input 1 is appropriate..

5. For the purposes of this ~culation, a suppression pool pressure of 2 psig will be assumed.

This is consistent with the discussion provided in Dresden UFSAR Section 6.3.3.4.3, in which the presence of 2 psig in. the drywell is expected since this is one of the signals which initiates.

the ECCS. This assumption is conservative.based on the followin;:.

1,;

The Dresden post-LOCA containment pressure response (Dresden UFSAR Figure 6.2-19) indicates an expected suppression pool pressure of > 15 psig at 200 seconds, and > 10 psig at 600 seconds.

The Quad Cities post-LOCA expected suppression pool pressure is >20 psig at 200 seconds and 600 seconds (Quad Cities UFSAR Figure 6.2-16).

Reference 1 indicates a minimum expected pool pressure of approximately 20 psig at 200 seconds, and 5.5 psig at 600 seconds.

r..,

jcALCULATION NO. DRE97-0002 REV. 0 PAGE 6

6. While no Dresden-specific short-term containment temperature response exists, a reasonable estimate can be made using the following eXisting analyses:

In Reference 1, the Dresden post-LOCA suppression pool temperature at 200 seconds is 138°F. and at 600 seconds is l50°F, based on a 95°F initial pool temperature. These values were developed using modem analysis techniques,.

including ANS 5.1 decay heat model, feedwater flow and addition of pump heat.

The temperature profiles for Quad Cities are available and are considered representative for use at Dresden, based on plant sinlilarities with respect to containment size, core power, and reactor operating parameters. The Quad Cities containment response (Quad Cities UFSAR Figure 6.2-18) indicates the pool temperature at 200 seconds is 144°F, and at 600 seconds is 147°F, based on a 90°F initial pool temperature. These values were developed using original analysis techniques, including the May-Witt decay heat model, no feedwater flow and no pump heat added. If corrected to a 95°F initial pooltemperature (assuming a one-to-on~ short-term temperature relationship), these values conservatively bound the Reference 1 values listed above.

Therefore, for the purposes of this calculation, the more conservative Quad Cities temperatures' will be used.

7. It is assumed that a reduction in initial suppression pool temperature will result in a corresponding linear reduction in the short-term pool temperature response, since pool cooling is not active. Given this assumption, therefore, for a reduced initial pool temperature of 75°F (lS°F reduction from Quad Cities values based on 90°F initial torus temperature), the pool temperature at 200 seconds post-LOCA is 129°F, and at 600 seconds is 132°F.

I

8. GE SIL 151 includes a case ot all 4 LPCI pumps injecting into both reactor recirculation loops simultaneously, with one loop broken. While it is expected that this case may result in slightly higher LPCI pump flow rates, a significant amount of water will be injected into th~ react<?r

through the intact loop. Therefore, any reduction in Core Spray system flow dtic t.:.,..;:~ation below the minimum required flow will be made up by the LPCI flow injecting into the reactor.

Therefore, it is expected that the PCT will not be challenged in this case.

~-*

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0002 REV. 0 PAGE 7 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS

1. Maximum LPCI and Core Spray pump tlow5 used are as follows:

Core Spray I-Pump Maximum Injection Flow LPCI 4-Pump Maximum Injection Flow to broken loop 5800 gpm (Ref. 2) 20,600 gpm (Ref. 3, Att. S)

2. The maximum allowable suppression pool temperature under normal operating conditions is

95°F (Ref. 4). For the purposes of this calculation, the effects of an initial pool temperature of 75°F on LPCl/CS pumps NPSH margin will be examined.

3. The NPSH Required for the LPCI and Core Spray pumps is 31.5 ft. at 5150 gpm. 38.5 ft. at 5800 gpm (Refs. 12, 13).

4. LPCl/CS pump suction piping friction losses (excluding strainer losses) were developed for a single flow case using a FLO-SERIES Version 4.11 model of the Dresden ECCS ring header and pump snction piping (Ref. 5). This model was then run at the various LPCI/CS pump combinations and flows as required to support the cases evaluated in this calculation (Attachment A).

. 5. The minimum suppression pool level elevation using a maximum dr.awdown of 2.1 ft. is 491' 5", or 491.4 ft. (Ref 6).

6. The suppression pool strainers have a 100% clean head loss of 5.8 ft. @10,000 gpm (Ref 7).

7. LPCI and Core Spray pump centerline elevation is 478. l ft. (Refs. 8, 9).

8. NPSH Available (NPSHA) is,falculated using the following equation:

.J NPSHA = 144 x V x (P, - Pv) + Z - hL - h.anm (based on Ref. 10, p. 2.216) where:

P, = suppression pool pressure in psia Pv = saturation pressure in psia V -

specific volume in ft3 /lb hL = suction fiiction losses in feet h.anm = head loss across strainer in feet Z

= static head of water above pump inlet in feet

9. Saturation pressure of water at 129°F is 2.164 psia, at 132°F is 2.345 psia (Ref 11).

10. Specific volume of water at 129°F is 0.016243 ft3/lb, at 132°F is 0.016256 ft3/lb (Ref 11).

./

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0002 REV. 0 PAGE 8

5.0 REFERENCES

I. "Dresden Containment Analysis for Limiting DBA-LOCA", GE letter from S. Mintz to J.

Nash dated November 18, 1996, Project No. DRF T23-00740

2. "Evajuation of Core Spray Capabilities and Surveillance Basis", Dresden Calculation No.

DRE96-0207, dated December 17, 1996

3. "LPCI System Derivation of System Resistance Curves, Pump Curves, and Comparison to LOCA Analysis - Vrut 2", Dresden Calculation No. DRE96*02 l 1, Rev. 1, December 17, 1996

4. Dresden Unit 2 Technical Specifications, DPR-19, Section 3.7.A.1.c.1 S. * "ECCS Suction Hydraulic Analysis without the Strainers*~. Duke Engineering & Services Calculation Number DRE96-024 l dated December 20, 1996

6. "Submergence of LPCI Discharge Line Post LOCA - Dresden Units 2 & 3", letter from S.

Eldridge to C:. Schroeder dated September 29, 1992, CHRON# 0115532

7. "Supporting Calculations for the ECCS Suction Strainer Modification, Nutech File No.

64.313.3119 Rev. 1, dated June 22, 1983

8. Sargent & Lundy Drawing M-547, LPCI pump suction

9. Sargent & Lundy Drawing M-549, Core Spray pump suction

'a. *

10. "Pump Handbook", 2nd Edition, Karassik, Igor et. al., 1986

11. AS.ME Steam Tables, 1967

12. Bingham Pump Curve Nos. 25355-7, 27367-8, 27383, 25384-5 for Model 12xl4xl4.5 CVDS, Dresden Station LPCI.pumps

.J J

13. Bingham Pump Curve Nos.' 25213 (2A), 25243 (2B), 25231 (3A) and 25242 (3B) for Model

.12x16x14.5 CVDS, Dresden Station Core Spray pumps

14. Hydraulic Institute Eng!!!-.~>'I~ Data Book, Seeond Edition, 1990

15. Cameron Hydraulic Data, 17th Edition, Ingersoll-Rand Company, 1988

16. "Cavitation Test Report - 12x14x14-1/2 CVDS Pump", Bingham Pump Co., May 22, 1969

17. "SIB Pumps 12xl4xl4.5 (LPCI) and 12xl6xl4.5 (CS) CVDS - Flow Delivery Under Full Cavitation Conditions", letter from H. Palas to D. Spencer dated November l, 1996

18. "Comments to Quad Cities LPCS/CS Pump NPSH Position", letter from D. Spencer to H.

Palas dated November 1, 1996

19. "Dresden LOCA PCT Impact ofNPSH Limiting ECCS Flow", letter NFS:BSA:96-165 from R Tsai to R. Freeman dated December 20, 1996

~.

lc_AL_C_ULA n_o_N_N_o_._D_RE_9_7_-0_00_2 ____ RE_v_._o ______

P_A_G_E_9 _ ___.I '

6.0 CALCULATIONS

. The equation presented in Design Input 8 can be rewritten to solve for the minimum suppression pool pressure required for pump protection by setting NPSHA equal to NPSHR a5 follows:

Pt.mm= (NPSHR-Z+~ + Pv (I)

144 xv.

where Pv = 2.164 psia @129°F (Design Input 9) 2.345 psia *@132°F (Design Inpui 9) v = 0.016243 ft3/lb @129°F (Design Input 10) 0.016256 ft3/lb @132°F (Design Input 10)

~. = fiiction (hL) + strainer Chmam) loss (Attachment A) haram = 5.8 ft.@ 10,000 gpm clean (Design Input 6) z

= 491.4 ft. - 478. l ft.= 13.3 ft.

(Design Inputs 5, 7)

NPSHR = 31.5 ft. @5150 gpm (Design Input 3) 38.5 ft. @ 5800 gpm (Design Input 3)

Solving Equation 1, the minimum suppression pool pressure required to satisfy LPCI and Core Spray pump NPSH requirements is determined to be:.

Total LPCI Total CS Minimum Minimum Minimum LPCl/CS Suction* Suction Required Required Available Flow per Torus

.Loss,

Loss, Torus Torus Torus LPCl/CS Pump Temp hc-i*

hcocaJ Pressure for Pressure for Pressure Pumos (srom)

(OF)

(ft)

LPCI (Dsia)

CS (osia)

(Dsia) 4/2 5150/5800 129 18.7 17.9 17:9 20.6 16.7 412 5150/5800 132 18.7 17.9 18.l 20.8 16.7

~

LPCI cs NPSH NPSH Margin Margin (ft)

(ft)

-2.9

-9.1

-3.3

-9.S As shown above, when all six ECCS pumps are running the potential exists for both the LPCI and

. Core Spray pumps to cavitate. The LPCI pumps NPC:H deficit is relatively small and will result in a negligible reduction in flow due to cavitation (< ! '-'~' ;-:.".'l per pump). The reduced flow at which the CS pumps will operate* can be determined using the methodology presented in Section 2.0.

Note: Reduction in LPCI flow is conservatively ignored for CS pump reduced flow determination.

Total CS LPCI

[Fig. 1)

Required Available cs CS Flow Suction Flow Per Static Vapor Specific Reduced Torus Torus NPSH PerPUm~ Temp Losses Pump Head Pressure Volume NPSHR Pressure Pressure Margin ltrom}

(OF)

(ft}

fmm)*

(ft) fnsia)

(ft3/lb)

(ft}

(osia) losia)

(ft) 5800 129 17.9 5150 13.3 2.164 0.016243 35.7 19.4 16.7

-6.3 5500 129 16.9 5150 13.3 2.164 0.016243 32.5 17.6 16.7

-2.l 5000 129 15.3 5150 13.3 2.164 0.016243 27.9 14.9 16.7 4.1 5500 132 16.9 5150 13.3 2.345 0.016256" 32.5 17.8 16.7

-2.5 5000 132 15.3 5150 13.3 2.345 0.016256 27.9 15.1 16.7 3.8

~.

y

..... lc_AL_CULA TI_O_N_N_O_._D_RE_9_7_-0_00_2 ____

RE_V_._o ______

P_A_G_E_._1_0_...J1_

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 g 1.00 c: 0.00 i -1.00

c

~ -2.00

-3.00

. -4.00

.S.00

-6.00

-7.00

~

Core Spray NPSH Margin Post-LOCA GE SIL 151 2 psig

~

-129"F

200 sec

., ~

~132"F

600sec

~

....... ~

N ~

~~

~ ~

~

~,

""" I~

5000 5100 5200 5300 5400

.5500 5600 5700 5800 CS Pump Flow (gpm)

As shown above, it is expected ~t the Core Spray pump reduced flow due to cavitation would be greater than 5300 gpm per pump within the first 200 seconds post-LOCA This is greater than the 5276 gpm per pump required in the first 200 seconds post-LOCA to ensure the PCT remains below 2200°F. The Core Spray pump reduced flow beyond 200 seconds would be at least 5300 gpm per pump, greater than the nominal 4500 gpm per pump that is required.

. J 7.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS An NPSH analysis was performed for the LPCl/CS pumps boun-'i,,~ the first 600 seconds*

following a DBA-LOCA. Specifically, the GE Sil.. 151 case was e*.*~!:.:~.~~~ postulating a failure of the LPCI Loop Select logic. The calculation was performed using a reduced initial torus temperature of 75°F and a torus pressure of 2 psig. It was determined that when all six ECCS *

pumps are running, the potential exists for the LPCI and Core Spray pumps to cavitate. The LPCI pump NPSH deficit is relatively small and will result in a negligible reduction in flow due to cavitation(< 100 gpm per pump). The reduced flow at which the Core Spray pumps will operate in the first 200 seconds was estimated to be greater than 5300 gpm per pump, which is adequate to ensure the PCT remains below 2200°F. The Core Spray pump reduced flow beyond *200 seconds would be at least 5300 gpm per pump, which is greater than the nominal 4500 gpm per pump required. Therefore, it is concluded that adequate NPSH exists to ensure the LPCI/CS pumps can perform their safety function using a reduced initial torus temperature of 75°F and a torus pressure of 2 psig.

~-*

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0002 REV. O PAGE FINAL *l **

LPCl/Core Spray Reduced NSPHR Curve I

I I

/

38

/

....._ y A Reduced NPSHR at Point of I

~

Initial Head Collapse I

"'~

I

~~

36 34

/

.....,II"'"

.J

~.

i

~

I

~

1

~.......

1

~'-""""

y = 2.0513E-06x2-1.2513E-02x + 3.9231E+o1 j 24 22 --

20 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400

!5600 5800 6000

,.J

..J Flow(gpm)

Figure 1 (Refs. 17, 18)

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0002 REV. 0 PAGE Al

I ATTACHMENT A LPCl/Core Spray Suction Friction. Losses FLO-SERIES Model LPCl/Core Spray pump suction fiiction losses were developed using a FLO-SERIES model of the

Dresden ECCS ring header and* pump suction piping (Ref. 5). The model was run at the various.

LPCI and Core Spray pump flows listed bel.ow as required to support the cases evaluated in this calculation. The input and output of the FLO-SERIES runs are included in this Attachment.

Total Total LPCI LPCI cs cs Flow Flow Strainer LPCI Loss Suction cs Loss Suction

Per Per Loss*

Friction +15% Loss* Friction +15% Loss*

LPCI LPCI ts cs blhl*

Loss bL b_,

Loss hL h1ota1 FLO-SERIES Pumos <min) Pumos (mm)

(ft)

Line-up Filename 4

5150 2

5800 6.7 10.4 12.0 18.7 9.8 11.2 17.9 4L512C58.PLU 4

5150 2

5500 6.4 10.3 11.8 18.2 9.1 10.4 16.9 4L512C55:PLU 4

5150 2

5000 6.0.

10.0 11.5 17.6 8.0 9.2 ' 15.3 4L512C50.PLU

Strainer 1-* (Fl-per llb'afner/10,000 IJllD] 1 11 5.8 ft.

Table A-1

/

~*

~lc_A~L_C_U_LA TI_O_N_N_O_. __

D_RE_9_7_-0_0_02 _________

RE __

V_._o ___________ P_A_G_E __ A2

__ __.r u---------------

CORE SPRAY SUCTION 38 TO LPO SUCTION 3C1D p

l I

TO LPO SUCTION lA A --------~Q TO CORE SPRAT SUCTION JA N

s LPCI SUCTION l8 Figure Al: ECCS Suction Nodal Diagram including the Ring Header j

~*

Project: Dresden Gt ~IL-151 Case-by: palas LINEUP REPORT rev: 01/03/97 LINELIST: RING DEVIATION: 0.00898 %

dated: 12/18/96 after: 5 iterations 4 LPCI @5150 and 2 CS @5800 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the ~irst specification were used..

NODE DEMAND NODE DEMAND gpm

. qpm N

5800 0

0.0001 p

10300 R

5150 s

5150 u

5800 FLOWS IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 32200 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 32200 gpm PIPELINE FLOW_

PRESSURE SET gpm SOURCE psig Torus-1 10501 A

0 Torus-2 10632 B

0 Torus-3 1106.8

<<< c

. 0 FLOWS IN: 32201 qpm FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm NET FLOWS IN: 32201 qpm CALC:.UL.l\\'!"!'.\\!"I tv(). l:>~~1-V'J/f "2..

PAGe 1\\3 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 1 j

NODE ELEVATION DEMAND PRESSURE H GRADE f.t gpm psi g ft A

0 p

0 0

B 0

p 0

0 c

0 p

0 0

E 0

-1.739

-4.037 F

0

-1.783

..:4.138 G

0

-1. 932

-4.484 H

0

-2.052

-4.763 I

0

-1. 792

-4.16 J

0

-1.948

-4.521 K

0

-1. 942

-4.507 L

0

-2.06

-4.782 M

0

-2.049

-4.755 N

0

> 5800

-2.209

.-s.127 0

0

> 0.0001

-1.942

-4.507 p

0

> 10300

~2.341

-5.433 Q

. 0

-2.596

-6.026 R

0

> 5150

-3.172

-7.362 s

0

> 5150

-4.493

-10.43 T

0

-2.473

-5.74 u

0

> 5800

-4.203

-9.756 (ALC.u..LATt01'l f'JO. )RE ~-,-'5S16 '2.

U, 'I*(>

l'AG.E. A4-PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 2

f

--~ *--*---*-* - *-*

PIPELINE FROM TO CS-3A I

N CS3B-l6 T

u CS3B-l8 M

T HPCI K

0

LPCI3A Q

R LPCI3A/B J

Q LPCI3B Q

s LPCI3C/D L

p Ring-1 E

I Ring-2 F

I Ring-3 F

J Rinq-4 K

J Ring-5 G

K Ring-6 G

L Ring-7 H

L Ring-8 M

<-> H Ring-9 E

M Torus-1 A

E

Torus-2 B

F Torus-3 c

G Torus-4 D

H PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 FLOW VEL dP Hl gpm ft/sec psi g ft 5800 8.086

o. 417 0.967 5800 10.2

1. 73 4.016 5800 8.086 0.424 0.984 0

0 0

0 5150

11. 99

o. 576 1.336 10300 7.79 0.649 1.506 5150

11. 99

1. 897 4.404 10300 7.79 0.281 0.651 3020 2.284 0.053 0.124 2780 2.103 0.010 0.022 7852 5.938 0.165 0.383 2448 1.852 0.006 0.013 2448

1. 852 0.010 0.023 8619 6.519 0.128 0.298 1681

1. 271 0.008 0.019 1681 1.271 0.004 0.008 7481 5.658 0.310

o. 719 10501 12.71 1.739 4.037 10632 12.87 1.783 4.138 11068 13.4

1. 932 4;494 closed 0

- o 0

CAt.tw.ATtO...) NO. }RE )7-~fJf2.. UEI/. tp PA~E. A 5 pg 3

4

!:"!~

'o:L1!'!..l~t 'O't. "rn.'d Y9W v by: palas LINEUP REPORT rev: 01/03/97 LINELIST: RING DEVIATION: O. 01 %

dated: 12/18/96 after: 5 iterations 4 LPCI @5150 and 2 CS @5500 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE DEMAND NODE DEMAND*

gpm gpm N

5500 0

>>>. 0.0001 p

10300 R

5150 s

>>>. 5150 u

5500 FLOWS IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 31600 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 31600 gpm PIPELI~E FLOW PRESSURE SET gpm SOURCE psig Torus-1 10299 A

0 Torus-2 10428 B

0 Torus-3 10873.

<<< c 0

FLOWS IN: 31600 gpm FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm NE;r FLOWS IN: 31600 gpm

<:..AU:..v..LAT10,J NO. 1)RE,7.. f$¢¢z.

IEY.~

PAG£ A' PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 1

~ *

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

NODE ELEVATION ft A

0 B

0 c

0 E

0 F

0 G

0 H

.()

I 0

J 0

K 0

L 0

M 0

N 0

0 0

p 0

Q

o R

0 s

0 T

0 u

0

/

PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 DEMAND gprn

> 5500

> 0.0001

> 10300

> 5150

> 5500 PRESSURE H GRADE psi g ft p

0

o p *. 0 0

p 0

0

-1. 673

-3.*883

-1. 715

-3.981

-1. 865

-4.328

~t*

-1. 978

-4.591

-1.723

-4

-1. 88

-4.364

-1. 875

-4.351'

-1. 988

-4.614

-1. 973

-4.58

-2.098

-4.87

-1. 875

-4.351

-2.268

-5.265

-2.529

-5.87

-3.104

-7.206

.-4.426

-10.27

-2.355

-5.466

-3. 911

-9.079 CAL~Tto...J fJO, ~tl.£'>1-tpfl(>Z ~v.tf>

P~<iE A7 pg 2

~.

PIPELINE

CS-3A CS3B-16 CS3B-18 HPCI LPCI3A LPCI3A/B LPCI3B LPCI3C/D Ring-1 Ring-2 Ring-3 Ring-4 Ring-5 Ring-6 Ring-7 Ring-8 Ring-9 Torus-1 Torus-2 Torus-3 Torus-4 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11

-*~*****-

FROM TO.

I N

T u

M T

K 0

Q R

J Q

Q s

L p

E

I F

I F

J K

J G

K G

L H

L M

<-> H E

M A

E B

F c

G D

H FLOW VEL dP Hl gpm ft/sec psi g ft 5500

7. 668

. 0.375 0.870 5500 9.669 1.557 3.613 5500

7. 668 0.381 0.885 0

0 0

0 5150

11. 99 0.576

1. 336 10300

7. 79 0.649 1.506 5150 11.99 1.897 4.404 10300

7. 79 0.281 0.651 2*932 2.217 0.050 0 *. 111 2568

1. 942 0.008 0.019 7860 5.945 0.165 0.383

2440

1. 845 0.006 0.013 2440

1. 845 0.010 0.023 8433 6.378 0.123 0.286 1867

1. 412 0.010 0.023 1867

1. 412 0.004 0.010 7367 S.572 0.300 0.697 10299 12.47

1. 673 3.883 10428 12.63

1. 715 3.981 10873 13.16

1. 865 4.328 closed 0

o 0

CALc..uJ..ATtotJ tJo

l>RE: )7 ~ t/Jt)(; 2. REV. t/>

PA~ AS pg 3 f

l!'ro-,~! tnnu~a b d V'ltt!I' -

by: palas

. LINEUP REPORT rev: 01/03/91 LINELIST: RING dated: 12/18/96 DEVIATION: 0.0121 %

after: 5 iterations 4 LPCI @5150 and 2 CS @5000 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE DEMAND qpm N

5000 p

10300 s

5150 PIPELINE Torus-1 Torus-2 Torus-3 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 NODE DEMAND

- gpm 0

>>>. 0.0001 R

5150 u

5000 FLOWS IN: 0 qpm FLOWS OUT: 30600 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 30600 qpm FLOW PRESSURE SET gpm SOURCE psig 9962 A

0 10088 B

0 10550

<<< c

0 FLOWS IN: 30600

gpm, FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm NET FLOWS IN: 30600 gpm cAL<..tAutrrofl.\\ NO. 1>R.E~7-¢¢~2. f!E:v.¢ PAGe A~

pg 1

,j

,~ ;~s

~f

NODE ELEVATION ft A

0

B 0

' c 0

E 0

F 0

G

.0 H

0 I*

0 J

0 K

0 L

0 M

0 N

0 0

0 p

0 Q

.o R

0 s

0 T

0 u

0 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11

.~

DEMAND PRESSURE H GRADE gpm psi g ft p

0 o*

P 0 0

p *O 0

-:l. 565

-3.633

-1. 605

-3.725

.. :-1.755

-4.075

.. -1. 856

-4.309

-1. 611

-3.74

... -1.771

-4.111

.. -1. 765

-4. 097*

.. -1. 87

-4.34

-1.851

-4.296

> 5000

-1. 921

-4.458

> 0.0001

-1.765

-4.09?

> 10300

> 5150

> 5000

-2.15

-4.991

-2.42

-5.616

.* -2.995

-6.952

-4.317

-10.02

-2.166

-5.027

-3.453

-8.*016 C.ALJ:.U.LA TlO'J"l

1) RS ~7 -¢¢ ¢ ?. ~V * ¢ Pll<ic A 10 pg 2

. **-* -** ---*--* **-- *-*-*-*- ---~-.. ";.

PIPELINE FROM TO CS-3A I

N CS3B-16 T

u CS3B-18 M

T HPCI K

0 LPCI3A Q

R LPCI3A/B J

Q LPCI3B Q

s*

LPCI3C/D L

p Ring-1 E

I Ring-2 F

I Ring-3 F

J Ring-4 K

J Ring-5 G

K Ring-6 C;

L Ring-7 H

L Ring-8 M

<-> H.

Ring-9

~ E M

Torus-1 A

E Torus-2 B

F Torus-3 c

G Torus-4 D

H PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 FLOW VEL dP Hl gpm ft/sec psi g ft 5000 6.971 0.310

o. 719 5000 8.79 1.287

- 2. 988 5000 6.971 0.315 0.732 0

0 0

0 5150

11. 99 0.576

1. 336 10300 7.79 0.649

1. 506 5150

11. 99

1. 8_97 4.404 10300 7.79 0.281 0.651 2789 2.109 0.046 0.106 2211 1.672 0.006

o. 014 7877 5.957 0.166 0.385

. 2423

1. 833 0.006 0.013

2423

l. 833. 0.010 0.023 8127 6.146 0.114 0.265 2173

1. 644 0.013 0.031 2173

1. 644 0.006

0. 014 7173 5.425 0.285 0.662 9962 12.06 1.565 3.633 10088 12.21 1.605

. 3. 725 10550 12.77

l. 755 4.075" closed 0

o 0

CALC.u.L.AilON NO* })IZE97-¢f/>¢Z.

RJ;V. f/;

PA6E A/(

pg 3

/

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

Calculation Title Page

Calculation No.: DRE97-0003 Page 1 of 10.

i1 Safety Related D Regulatory. Related D Non-Safety Related Calculation

Title:

Dresden LPCUCore Spray NPSH Analysis Post-OBA LOCA: Reduced Torus Temperature Long-Term.

Station/Unit: Dresden Units 2 and 3 System Abbreviation: LPCl/CS Equipment No.: 2(3)-1502A/B/C/D Project No.:

2(3}-1401A/B Rev: o Status:

QA Serial # or CHRON #.

NA Date:

/4i~ o?4' 1/7/q7 Prepared by:

HA~//.'f f-'IJ~S Date:

r I

v

Revision Summary:

Electronic Calculation Data Files:

RING.PLL l 4L252C45.PLU 2L502C45.PLU RING.PLU 3L502C45.PLU 2L372C45.PLU 4L502C45. PLU 3L_50_25.PLU 1 L502C45.PLU 4L372C45.PLU

"!;._.25_50.PLU Do any assumptions in this calculation require later verification?

DYes (gJ No

. Reviewed by: J*W*~

Date:. ~/zP1 Review Method: 'PGTAtt.E-1' iEv1e-w Comments (C, NC or Cl): *Nu Approved by:('. ~~~i!dd{

1 le Litz Date: -

Calculation Revision Page Calculation No.: DRE97-0003 Page 2

Rev: O Status:

QA Serial # or CHRON #

NA Date:

Prepared by:

Date:

Revision Summary:

Electronic Calculation Data Files Revised:

J

.J Do any assumptions in this calculation requir~ :?l:*~r verification?

DYes Reviewed by:

Date:

Review Method:

Comments (C, NC or Cl):

Approved by:

Date:

of 10 DNo

Table of Contents Calculation No.: DRE97-0003 Description I

Title Page Revision Summary Table of Contents Purpose!Objective Methodology and Acceptance Criteria Assumptions Design Inputs References Calculations Summary and Conclusions Attachment A:. LPCl/Core Spray Suction Friction Losses FLO-SERIES Mbdel (29 pages)

Rev. O Page 3.of10 Page No.

Sub-Page No.

1 2

3 4

4 5

6 7

8 10 A1

. **:*:*~;

!CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0003 REV. 0 PAGE 4 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this calculation is to determine if sufficient Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) is available to the Dresden LPCI and Core Spray (CS) pumps following a DBA-LOCA with atmqspheric pressure in. the torus. This* calciilation examines NPSH conditions at* the bounding, long-tenn (> 600 seconds) condition following the accident, which occurs at the time of peak suppression pool temperature, The effects of throttled LPCI pumps and reduced peak suppression pool temperature will also be examined. The results of this calculation will be used to ~upport a Dresden Exigent. License Amendment.

2.0 METHODOWGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The minimum suppression pool pressure required to ensure LPCI and CS pump protection will be determined under long-term post-LOCA conditions at the bounding NPSH condition. Since the suppression pool pressure remains constant after 600 seconds ( 14. 7 psia ), the bounding NP SH condition occurs at the time of peak suppression pool temperature. If the pressure required is less than 14.7 psia, then the pump NPSH requirements have been met. If the required pressure is greater than 14. 7 psia, then the potential eXists for the pumps to cavitate. In these situations, LPCI pump flows will be reduced to below-nominal values and new cases will be run to establish

the ability of the operator to throttle the pumps to an acceptable condition. This acceptable cc:>ndition is defined by the following criteria:

I) Adequate NPSH to the pumps - minimum pressure available is greater than minimum pressure required for the LPCI and CS pumps.

2) Adequate containment cooling - the. minimum containment cooling flO\\*.t.

analyzed is 5000 gpm JLPCI) through a single LPCI heat exchanger.

,J If an acceptable condition cannot be achieved by throttling, then cases involving reduced suppression pool temperatures will be explored.

Various pu.mp combinations will be explored to determine the bounding NPSH case for the LPU and Core Spray pumps. It will be shown that NPSH for the LPCl/CS pumps with 4 LPCl/2 CS pumps running is the bounding NPSH case. This calculation is bounding for NPSH due to use of the following conservative inputs:

maximum long-term suppression pool temperature post-LOCA, thus maximizing the vapor pressure and minimizing NPSH margin

torus pressure at time of peak temperature is atmospheric, thus minimizing NPSH margin

Technical Specifications minimum suppression.pool level including drawdown, minimizing elevation head and minimizing NPSH margin

increased clean, commercial steel pipe friction losses by 15% to account for aging effects

, *. L '."!.:;

y I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0003 REV. 0 PAGE 5

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS

1. It is assumed that at 10 minutes into ihe accident, operator action will be taken to ensure that

the LPCl/CS.pumps have been throttled to their rated flows (5000 and 4500 gpm respectively).

Therefore, the pumps are at their rated flows at the time of peak suppression pool temperature.

2. LPCl/CS pump suction piping friction losses (excluding strainer losses) were developed for a single flow case using a FLO-SERIES model of the Dresden ECCS ring header and pump suction piping (Ref 3). This piping model was then run at the various LPCl/CS pump combinations and flows as required to support the cases evaluated in this calculation (Attachment A). The model that was developed uses clean, commercial steel pipe. In order to

compensate for the increased loss due to the potential effects of aging, the resulting friction losses from.the model were increased by 15%. This is consistent with discussions provided in References 13 and 14.

3. To account for strainer plugging, one of the four torus strainers is assumed 100% blocked, while the remaining three strainers are assumed clean. While the torus strainers are not included in the FLO-SERIES model discussed in Assumption 2, blocking a strainer translates to blocking a torus-to-ring header entrance leg. This is accomplished in the model by closing one of the torus legs (Torus 1-4). Based on previous sensitivity analyses, Torus-4 was chosen for maximum effect on both LPCI and Core Spray suction losses for all pump combinations.

4. The peak suppression pool temperature post-LOCA is not provided in the original Dresden FSAR for any LPCl/CCSW pump combinations. A value of 170°F is' estimated for the 'Dresden 1 LPCI I 2 CCSW case based on the following:

Quad Cities has similar ECCS flows, heat exchanger capacities and heat loads to Dr~sden; therefore, Quad Cities post-LOCA results can be employed to provide a reasonable estimate of Dresden's peak pool temperature (Ref. I). Table 5.2.5 of the Quad Cities FSAR provides a Case ( d), which yields a suppression pool maximum temperature.of 168°F for;a 1 RHR/2 RHRSW pump scenario based on an initial pool temperature of90°F. For'a Dresden initial pool temperature of 95°F, an adder of 2°F is used, resulting in a Dresden peak suppression pool temperature estimate of 170°F. The I

2°F ~d~: :s supported by subsequent GE Calculations which show a sensitivity of 1°F

, :.* ;\\

for a 5°F change in initial pool temperature (Ref. 2).

Reference 15, page 2-5 states the following: "The maximum torus ~emperature for a design basis accident would. reach about 170°F."

The Dresden FSAR, page 6.2-17 includes a discussion regarding LPCl/CCSW heat exchanger sizing. It states "that in the event of the loss of coolant accident the terminal suppression pool temperature would not exceed l 70°F."

S. Suppression pool pressure is assumed atmospheric (14.7 psia). This is conservative since pressure above atmospheric is expected in the suppression pool as a result of the elevated temperatures and blowdown of the non-condensables post-LOCA.

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0003 REV. 0

.*.PAGE 6 I

4.0 DESIGN INPUTS I. LPCI and CS pump suction pipfog Diction losses (excluding strainer losses) from the torus.

strainers to the pumps were developed in Reference 3 using a FLO-SERIES model of the ECCS ring header and suction piping. This piping model was then utilized for the various

LPCl/CS pump combinations and flows as required to support the cases evaluated in this calculation (Attachment A).

2. The minimum torus level elevation with a maximum drawdown of2.l ft. is 491'5", or 491.4 ft.

(Ref 4). At. the time of peak suppression pool temperature, a recovery* of 1.1 ft. occurs, resulting in a net drawdown of 1 ft (Ref 5). This represents a torus level elevation of-492.5'.

3. The torus strainers have a head loss of 5.8 ft.@ 10,000 gpm clean (Ref. 6).

4. LPCI and Core Spray pump centerline elevation is 478. l ft. (Refs. 7, 8).

5. NPSH Available (NPSHA) is calculated using the following equation:

NPSHA = 144 x V x (P, - Pv) + Z - hL ~ h.u.m (based on Ref 9, p. 2.216) where:

P, = suppression pool pressure in psia Pv = saturation pressure in psia V = specific volume in ft311b*

hL = suction Diction losses in feet hmain = head loss across strainer in feet Z

= ~tatic head of water above pump inlet (feet)

6. Saturation pressure ofwater_~at 170°F is 5.99 psia, and at 160°F is 4.74 psia (Ref 10)

7. Specific volume of water at 170°F is 0.016451 ft3/lb, and at 160°F is 0.016395 (Ref. 10)

8. The NPSH Required (NPSHR.~ r..,r the LPCI pump is 30 ft. at 5000 gpm, 25.5 ft. at 3750 gpm, and 25 ft. at 2500 gpm (Ref. 11 ).

9. The NPSHR for the Core Spray pump is 27 ft. at 4500 gpm (Ref. 12).

a

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0003 REV. 0 PAGE 7

5.0 REFERENCES

1. "An Estimated Suppression Pool Temperature for Dresden NPSH Evaluation", Nuclear Fuel

Services Memo from K. Ramsden dated August 22, 1996

2. General Electric report GENE-637-042-1193 dated February, 1994

.* 3. "ECCS Suction Hydraulic Analysis without the Strainers", Duke* Engineering & Services Calculation Number DRE96-024 l _dated December 20, 1996 4, "Submergence of LPCI Discharge Line Post LOCA - Dr~sden Units 2 & 3", letter from S.

Eldridge to C. Schroeder dated September 29, 1992, CHRON# 0115532 S. "Dresden LPCl/Containment Cooling System," GE Nuclear Energy letter from S. Mintz to T.

L. Chapman dated January 25, 1993

6. "Supporting Calculations *ror the ECCS Su.ction Strainer Modification", Nutech File No.

64.313.3119 Rev.. 1, dated June 22, 1983 *

7. Sargent & Lundy Drawing M-547, LPCI pump suction

8. Sargent & Lundy Drawing M-549, Core Spray pump suction

9. "Pump Handbook", 2nd Edition, Karassik, Igor et. al., i 986

10. ASME Steam Tables, 1967 I 1. Bingham Pump Curve Nos. 25355-7, 27367-8, 27383, 25384-5 for Model 12xl4xl4.5 CVDS, Dresden Station LP<tI pumps

12. Bingham Pump Curve Nos. 25213 {2A), 25243 (2B), 25231 {3A) and 25242 (3B) for Model 12x16x14.5 CVDS, Dresden Station Core Sprly ~,...:;-~.

13. Hydraulic Institute Engineering Data Book, Second Edition, 1990

14. Cameron Hydraulic Data, 17th Edition, Ingersoll-Rand Company, 1988

15. Dresden FSAR, Amendment 22, May 7, 1970

-~.

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0003 REV. 0 PAGE 8 6.0 CALCULATIONS The NPSHA equation presented in Design Input 5 can be rewritten to solve for the minimum.

suppression pool pressure required for pump protection by setting the NPSHA equal to the NPSH Required (NPSHR) as follows:

where Pa,mill = (NPSHR-Z+~ + Pv 144 xv

.Pv = 5.99 psia @170°F v =* 0.016451 ft3/lb@l70°F htou1 = friction (hL) + straiiier (h11n~) loss

~in= 5.8 ft.@ 10,000 gpm clean z = 492.5 ft. - 478. l ft.= 14.4 ft.

NPSHR =. 30 ft. @ 5000 gpm for LPCI 27 ft. @ 4500 gpm for CS (1)

(Design Input 6)

(Design Input 7)

(Attachment A)

(Design Input 3)

(Design Inputs 2, 4)

(Design Input 8)

(Design Input 9)

Solving Equation 1, the minimum suppression pool pressure required to satisfy LPCI and Core Spray pump NPSH requirements under a spectnim of pump combinations is determined to be:

Total Total Minimum Minimum LPCI cs Required Required Minimmlf Suction Suction Torus Torus Availaolc

Loss Loss Pressure for Pressure for Torus LPCI cs LPCI/CS hiou1 htou1 J

LPCI cs Pressure Margin Margin Pumps

{ft)

(osia)

{psia)

(ft)

(ft) 412 16:1 13.3 19.4 16.9 14.7

-11.1

-5.3 312 13.0 10.1 18.1 15.6 14.T i

-~.o

-2.1 212 10.6 7.5 17.1 14.5 14.7

-5.6 0.5 112.

7.5 5:8 15.7 13.7 14.7

-2.5 2.3 All the combir)ations evaluated above involve 2 CS pumps. These cases bound the respective I CS pump scenarios due to the higher ring header/strainer losses of the 2-pump cases combined with rio pool temperature benefit (cooling) from the added Core Spray pump (second pump actually adds heat to the pool). As shown above, the potential exists for the LPCI and CS pumps

to cavitate in most of the pump scenarios. For these cases, throttling of the LPCI pumps may be required to ensure NPSH requirements are met. The following cases are provided to establish the ability of the operator to throttle the pumps to an acceptable condition as defined in Section 2.0.

. ~. ~--

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97~0003 REV. 0 PAGE 9 Suction Strainer Rcq'd Available Loss Loss Static Vapor Tonis TONS LPCl/CS LPCl/CS Total Status of Pumps NPSHR hi.

h.w Head Pressure Pl'cssure Ptessure Marifn Pumps System Flows Punm (ft)

(ft)

(osia)

<osia)

(ft)I Running (l!DID)

LPCI 30.0 10.7 5.4 14.4 5.99 19.4 14.7

-11.1 4n, 20000/9000 4 LPCI pumps throttled to.

5000 mm ner numo LPCI 25.5 6.5 3.7 14.4 5.99 15.0 14.7

-0.7 4n, 15000/9000 4 LPCI pumps throttled to 3750 mm ner numo LPCI 25.0 3.4 2.3 14.4 5.99

. 12.9 14.7 4.3 4n, 10000/9000 4 LPCI pumps throttled t0 2500 2DIIl ner oumo LPCI 30.0 9.3 3.7 14.4 5.99 18.1 14.7

"".8.0 3n, IS000/9000 3 LPCI pumps throttled to 5000 irnm ner oump LPCI 30.0 7.0 2.3 14.4 5.99 16.5

.14.7

-4.3 3/2 10000/9000 2 LPCI pumps throttled to I-pp 2500 gpm per pump; single loop LPCI throttled to 5000 mm LPCI 25.0 3.4 2.3 14.4 5.99 12.9 14,7 4.3 3/2 10000/9000 2 LPCI pumps throttled to 2-pp 2500 gpm per pump; single loop LPCI throttled to 5000 ~m LPCI 30.0 8.3 2.3 14.4 5.99 17.1 14.7

-5.6 2/2

. I 0000/9000 2 LPCI pumps throttled to 5000 20m ner owno LPCI 25.5 5.0 1.8 14.4 5.99 13.5 14.7. 2.8 2/2 7500/9000 2 LPCI *pumps throttled to 3750 20m oer pwnp LPCI.30.0 6.2 1.3 14.4 5.99 15.7 14.7

-2.4 1/2 S000/9000 l LPCI pump throttled to 5000mm cs 27.0 7.9 5.4 14.4 5.99 16.9 14.7

-5.3 4n, 20000/9000 4 LPCI pumps throttled to 5000 mm ner owno cs 27.0 6.5 3.7 14.4 5.99 15.6 14.7

-2.2 4/2 15000/9000 4 LPCI pumps throttled tO 3750 mm ner ownp cs 27.0 5.4 2.3 14.4 5.99 14.6 14.7 0.3 4n, i0000/9000 4 LPCI pumps throttJ.*.d to 2500 llJ)m oer PlUUP cs 27.0 6.4 3.7 14.4 5.~9 15.6 14.7

-2.1 3/2 15000/9000 3 LPCI pumps t..'irottled 'to

.i 5000 mm ner pwnp cs 27.0 5.4 2.3 14.4 5.99 14.6 14.7 0.3 3n, 10000/9000 2 LPCI pumps throttled to 2500 gpm per pump; single LPCI throttled to 500?, ~

5.2 14.5 14.7 10000/9000 r.;;~

27.0 2.3 14.4 5.99 0.5 2n.

2 LPCI pumps tr.r~!:,**.* -~-~.

5000 IWtn ner oumo cs 27.0 4.5 1.3 14.4 5.99 13.7 14.7 2.3 1n.

5000/9000 1 LPCI pump throttled to

5000 srom As shown above, the LPCI and Core Spray pumps can be throttled to ensure NPSH requirements are met and that adequate containment cooling exists for all ECCS pump combinations except the 1/2 case. In this case, the LPCI NPSH deficit is approximately 1 psi. Reducing the pool temperature by 10°F would result in a reduction in vapor pressure of slightly more than 1 psi.

Therefore, at a suppression pool temperature of 160°F, the 112 case is as follows:

.. ::"_**~

1cALCULATION NO. DRE97-0003 REV. *o PAGE FINALj Suctioo Strainer Req'd Available Loss Loss Static Vapor Torus Torus LPCl/CS LPCl/CS Total Status of PUmps NPSHR ht.

b..

Head Prmurc Prmurc Pressure Marp.

Pumps Syslem Flows ft ft ft ft ft R

LPCI 30.0 6.2 1.3 14.4 4.74 14.5 14.7 0.4 112 500019000. l _ LPCI pump throttled to 5000 7.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS.

An NPSH analysis was peffonned for the LPCI/CS pumps under bounding, long-term post-accident conditions with atmospheric pressure in the torus. Selecting inputs to minimize NPSH margin, it was detennined that the potential exists for.the LPCI and CS pumps to cavitate in most of the pump scenarios. For these cases, throttling of the LPCI pumps.may be required to ensure NPSH requirements are met. Specific cases involving throttled LPCI pumps were evaluated to establish the ability of the operator to throttle the pumps to an acceptable condition. The results of these cases were as follows:

In the 3/2 case, the single pump LPCI loop may need to be throttled to below 5000 gpm, and containment heat removed with the 2-pump loop. This will ensure the LPCI heat exchanger receives.its rated LPCI tlo~. Alternatively, a LPCI pump can be dropped to gain the required NPSH margin.

.In the 1/2 case, an NPSH deficit still exists after maximum throttling of the LPCI pump to 5000 gpm. It was determined that a reduction in the peak suppression pool temperature to 160°F would result in positive NPSH margin.

Therefore, at a reduced suppres~iOn pool peak temperature*of 160°F, it is concluded that under all post-LOCA pump combinations, positive NPSH margin for the LPCI and Core Spray pumps can be achieved by throttling the available LPCI pumps.

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0003 REV. 0 ATTACHMENT A LPCl/Core Spray Suction Friction Losses FLO-SERIES Model PAGE Al I

Dresden LPCl/Core Spray pump suction ftiction losses were developed using a FLO-SERIES

model of the Dresden ECCS ring header and pump suction piping (Ref. 3). The nodal diagram of the piping model is included as Figure Al. This model was run at the various LPCI and Core Spray pump combinations and flows listed below as required to support the cases evaluated in this calculation. The FLO-SERIES runs are included in this Attachment.

LPCI Total LPCl/CS Strainer LPCI Loss LPCI Flow per Loss*

Friction

+15% Loss*

LPCI cs Pump hsirata Loss Pumps Pumps

<mm)

{ft)

{ft}

4 2

5000/4500 5.4 9.3 4

2 3750/4500 3.7 5.6 4

2 2500/4500 2.3 2.9 3

2 5000/4500 3.7 8.1 3

.2 5000/4500 2.3 6.1 3

2 2500/4500 2.3 2.9 2

2 5000/4500 2.3 7.2 2

2 3750/4500 1.8 4.4 1

2 5000/4500 1.3 5.4 Strainer Lou* (Flow per ltnfner/10,000 &pm)

I 5.8 ft.

Total Lou * (I.- +l!W*) + Strainer 1.osJ bL btota1 (ft}

(ft}

10.7 16.1 6.5 10.2 3.4 5.7 9.3 13.0 7.0 9.3 3.4 5.7 8.3 10.6 s.o 6.8 6.2 7.4 Table A-1 cs Total cs Loss cs Friction

+15% Loss*

Loss bL blo&a.I (ft)

(ft)

(ft) 6.9 7.9.

13.3 5.7 6.5 10.2 4.7 S:4 7.7 5.6 6.4 10.1 4.7 S.4 7.7 4.7 5.4 7.7 4.5 S.2 7.6 4.2 4.8 6.6 3.9 4.5 5.7 FLO-SERIES Line-up Filename 4L502C45.PLU 4L372C45.PLU 4L252C45.PLU 3L502C45.PLU 3L_50_25.PLU 3L 25 50.PLU 2L502C45~PLU 2L372C45.PLU IL502C45.PLU

A I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0003 u~~~--~-----

CXJRE SPRAY SUCTION 38 TO LPCI SUCTION 3C10 p

L TO LPCI SUCTION lA c

.J

.8 s

&.PO SucTION l8 REV. 0 PAGE A2 TO CQAE SPAAT SUCT10N :\\A N

Figure Al: ECCS Suction Nodal Diagram including the Ring Header

llWV'U,t-'Q"J

Project:

12/21/96 by: Palas LINEUP REPORT rev: i2/21/96 LINELIST: RING DEVIATION: 0.0157 %

dated: 12/18/96 after: 5 iterations

.4 LPCI.95000 and 2 cs 94500 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked.

Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in a.11 pipelines.

Fluid. properties in the first specification were used.

NODE DEMAND

gpl'!l N

4500 p

10000 s

5000 PIPELINE.

FLOW gpm Torus-1 9433 Torus-2 9552 Torus-3 10015 PIPE~FLO rev 4.11 NODE DEMAND gpm 0

0.0001 R

5000 u

4500 FLOWS

.IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 29000 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 29000 gpm PRESSURE SET SOURCE psig A

0 B

0.

<<< c

0 FLOWS *IN: 29000 gpm FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm NET FLOWS IN: 29000.

gpm-CAL-.CUlAT'ON /Jo. ORE'11 -0003 RE.v. o

PAa~ A'3 pg l

~r'

NODE ELEVATION ft A

0 B

0 c*

0 E

0 F

0 G

0 H

0 I

0 J

0 K

0 L

0 M

.0 N

0 0

0 p

0 Q

0 :

R 0

s 0

.T 0

u 0

.:~{~. -

PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 DEMAND gpm

> 4500

> 0.0001

> 10000

> 5000

> 4500

.J

.J rzmm PRESSURE H GRADE psi g ft p

0 0

P* 0 0

p 0

0

-1.403

-3.258

-1. 43 9

-3.341

-1.582

-3.672

-1. 669

-3.874

-1.444

-3.351

-1. 59 6

-3.705

-1.591

-3.693

-1. 684

-3.909

-1. 662

...3.858

- -1. 694

-3.933

-1.591

-3.693

.. -1.948

-4.523

-2.208

-5.125

-*2. 7 5

-6.384

-3.996

-9.276

-1. 918

-4.451

-2.961

-6.874

(.,At-.C.UU.TIOrJ /Jo. ORE'l?-0003 R E.V. 0 pg 2

~

1~'/n~r:

PIPELINE FROM TO FLOW VEL dP Hl gprn ft/sec psi g ft

.CS-3A I

N 4500 6.274 0.251 0.582 CS3B-16 T

u 4500 7.911 1.044 2.-423 CS3B-18 M

T 4500 6.274 0.255 0.593 HPCI K

0 0

o.

LPCI3A Q

R 5000

11. 64 0.5.43 1.259 LPCI3A/B J

Q 10000 7.563 0.612 1.42 LPCI3B Q

s 5000 11.64

1. 789 4.152.

LPCI3C/D L

p 10000 7.563 0.264 0.614*

Ring-1.

E I

2609 1.973 0.040 0.093 Ring-2 F

I 1891 1.43 0.004 0.010 Ring-3 F

J 7661 5.794 0.157 0.365 Ring-4 K

J 2339

1. 769 0.005 0.012 Ring-5 G

K 2339

1. 769.

0.009 0.021 Ring-6 G

L 7676 5.805 0.102 0.237 Ring-7 H

L 2324

1. 758 0.015 0.035 Ring-8 M

<-> H 2324

1. 758

0. 0.07 0.015 Ring-9 E

M 6824 5.161 0.259 0.601 Torus-1 A

E 9433 11.42 1.403 3.258 Torus-2 B

F 9552

11. 57 1.439 3.341 Torus-3 c

G 10015 12.12 1-'* 582 3.672 Torus-4 D

H*

closed 0

0 0

R£v. o PAC... A 5 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 3

Project:

by:

Pal~s LINELIST: RING dated: 12/18/96 LINEUP REPORT rev: 12/21/96 DEVIATION: 0.031 %

after: 5 iterations 4 LPCI 83750 and 2 CS 94500 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked.

Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification wer~ used.

NODE DEMAND NODE DEMAND gprn gprn_

N 4500 0

>>>* 0.0001 p

7500 R

3750 s

3750 u

>>>: 4500 FLOWS IN: 0 gprn FLOWS OUT: 24000 gprn NET FLOWS OUT: 24000 gprn PIPELINE FLOW PRESSURE SET gprn SOURCE psig Torus.;.l 7829 A

0 Torus-2 7929*

B 0

Torus-3 8242

<<< c

'° FLOWS IN: 24000 gprn FLOWS OUT: O gprn NET FLOWS IN: 24000 gprn

.~

C..AL-CUtJ.TIOrJ tJo. ORE'11-0003 R£v. o PRC.. Ab P!?E-FLO rev 4.11 pg l

v NODE ELEVATION ft A

0 B

0 c

0 E

0 F

0 G

0 H

0 l

0 J

0 K

0 L

0 M

0 N

0 0

0 p

0.

Q 0

R 0

s*

0 T

0 u

0 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 DEMAND gpm

> 4500

> 0.0001

> 7500

> 3750

> 4500

-~

...... --...vvw l>RESSURE H GRADE psi g ft p

0 0

p 0

0 p

0 0

-0.967

-2.244

-0.9*92

-2.302

-1. 072

-2.487

-1.141

-2.648

-0.998

-2.316

-1.08

-2.507

-1. 077

-2.5

-i.144

-2.656

-1.14

-2.645

-1. 249

-2.899

-1. 077

-2.5

-1.293

-3.001

-1. 425

-3. 3 07

-1. 73

-*4. 016

-2.432

-5.645

-1.395

-3.238

-2.439

-5.661 CAL-CUU.T'ON. tJo. OREt:t1-0003 R£v. o PAat. A7 pg 2

PIPELINE CS-3A

.S3B-16

.CS3B-18 HPCI LPCI3A LPCI3A/B LPCI3B LPCI3C/D Ring-1 Ring-2 Ring-3 Ring-4 Ring-5 Ring-:6 Ring-7 Ring-8 Ring-9 Torus-1 Torus-2 orus-4 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 FROM I

T M

I<

Q J

Q L

E F

F K

G G

H M

E A

B c

D TO N

u T

0 R

Q s

p I

I J

J K

L L

H M

E F

G H

.~

FLOW gprn 4500 4500 4500 0

3750

7500 3750 7500 2283 2217 5712 1788 1788 6454 1046 1046 5546 7829 7929' 8242 closed

':t~Y'lll:tY~V VEL dP Hl ft/sec psi g ft 6.274 0.251 0.582 7.911

1. 044 2.423 6.274 0.255 0.593 0

0 0

8.732.

0.305 0.709 5.672 0.345 0.800 8.732 1.007 2.338 5.672 0.149 0.345

1. 726

0. 031 0.072 1.677 0.006 0.014 4.32 0.088 0.205 1.352 0.003 0.007 1.352 0.005 0.013 4.881*

0.073 0.169 0.791 0.003 0.008

o. 791 0.001 0.003 4.194 0.173 0.401 9.478 0.967 2.244' 9.6 0.992 2.302 9.979 1.012

. 2.487 0

0 0

CAL-CUlAT'ON No. ORE'l7 -0003 Rf..v. o

PAC.. Ai pg 3

_./

~Project:

by: Palas LINELIST: RING dated: 12/18/96 LINEUP REPORT rev: 12/21/96 J.~ I ~J./ ';HJ DEVIATION: 0.0111 \\

after: 6 iterations 4 LPCI 92500 and 2 C-S 84500 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked.

Volumetric !low rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE DEMAND NODE DEMAND gpm gpm N

4500 0

0.0001 p

5000 R

2500 s

2500 u

4500 FLOWS IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 19000 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 19000 gpm PIPELINE.

FLOW PRESSURE SET gpm SOURCE psig Torus-1 6218 A

0

~orus-2 6302 B

0 Torus-3 6480

<<< c

o FLOWS IN: 19000 gpm FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm NET FLOWS IN: 19000 gpm CA'-CIJL.AT'OtJ /Jo. OREt:t1-0003 R£v. o PA~f.. A 9 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 1

xz1nm NODE ELEVATION DEMAND PRESSURE H GRADE ft

. gprn psi g ft A

0 p

0 0

B 0

p 0

0 c

0 p

0 0

E 0

-0.610

-1.416 F

0

-0.626

-1.454 G

0

-0.662

-1. 538 H

0

-0.712

-1.*652 I

0

-0.634

-1. 472 J

0

-0.666

-:1. 547 K

0

-0.665

-1.544 L

0

-0.711

.:.i. 651 M

0

-0.712

-1. 652 N

0

> 4500

-0.885

-2.054 0

0

> 0.0001

-0.665

. -1. 544 p

0

> 5000

-.o. 778

-1. 805 Q

0

-0.820

-1. 903 R

0

> 2500

.-:o.956

-2.219 s

0

> 2500

-1.269

-2.945 T

0

-0.967

-2.245 u

0

> 4500

-2. 011

-4.668 PAC.. Alo PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 2

v I2i1t./V6 PIPELINE FROM TO FLOW VEL dP

Hl gprn ft/sec psi g ft CS-3A I

N 4500 6.i74 0.251 0.582 CS3B-16 T

u 4500 7.911 1.044 2.423 CS3B-18 M

T 4500 6.274 0.255 0.593 HPCI K

0 0

0 o*

0 LPCI3A

.Q R

2500 5.822 0.136 0.315 LPCI3A/B J

Q 5000 3.781 0.154 0.357

.LPCI3B Q

s 2500

. s. 822 0.449 1.041 LPCI3C/D L

p 5000 3.781 0.066 0.154 Ring-1 E

I 1999 1.512 0.024 0.056 Ring-2 F

I

. 2501 1.892 0.008 0.018 Ring-3 F

J 3800 2.874 0.040

0. 093 '

Ring-4 K

J 1200 0.907 0.001.

0.003 Ring-5 G

K 1200 0.907 0.002 0.006 Ring-6 G

L 5280.

3.993 0.049 0.113 Ring-7 L

<-> H 280.3 0.212 0

0 Ring.;.8 H

M 280.3 0.212 0

0 Ring-9 E

M 4220 3.191 0.102 0.236 Torus-1 A

E 6218 7.529 0.610 1.416 Torus-2 B

F 6302 7.629 0.626 1.454

-om-3 c

G 6480 7.845 o*. 662 1.538 orus-4 D

H closed 0

0 0

C..AL-WL.ATIOtJ NO. ORE'11-0003 RE.v. o PAaE All PIPE-FLO re~ 4.11 pg 3

~. *

'l... )"'(. 'l:r(. v by: Palas LINELIST: RING dated : 12 I 18 / 9 6 LINEUP REPORT rev: 12/21/96 DEVIATION: 1.37 %

after: 3 iterations 3 LPCI @5000 and 2 CS 94500 Injecting. Nearest torus blocked.

Volumetric flow rates require c.onstant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in.the first specification were used.

\\

NODE DEMAND NODE DEMAND gpm gp:n N

4500 p

5000*

R 5000 s

5000 u

4500 FLOWS IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 24000 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 24000.

gpm PIPELINE

FLOW PRESSURE SET gpm SOURCE ps.ig Torus-1 7825 A

0 Torus-2 7891 B

0 Torus-3 8284

<<< c

o FLOWS IN: 24000 gpm FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm NET FLOWS IN: 24000 gpm CAt....CUU.T'ON No. ORE'f7 -0003 R E.v. o PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 1

NODE EL~ATION ft A

0 B

0 c

0 E

0 F

0 G

0 H*

0 I

0 J

0 K

0 L

0 M

0 N

0 P*

0 Q

0 R

0 s

0

.T 0

u 0

PIPE~FLO rev 4.11 DEMAND gpm

> 4500

> 5000

> 4500

'J.ZiZ't.M PRESSURE H GRADE psi g ft p

0 0

p 0

0 p

0 0

-0.966

-2.242

-0.982

-2.28

-1.082

-2.513

-Ll09

-2.574

~1.012

-2.349.

-1. 086

-2.52

-1.106

-2.568

-1.118

-2.595

-Ll08

-2.573

-1.263

-2.931

-1.184

-2.748

-1.697

~3.939

-2.24

-5.199

..:3. 486

-8.091

-1. 364

.:.3.166

-2.408

-5.589 R£v. o PAa.E: AJ3 pg 2

PIPELINE CS-3A CS3B-16 CS3B-18 HPCI LPCI3A LPCI3A/B LPCI3B LPCI3C/D Ring-1 Ring-2 Ring-3 Ring-4 Ring-5 Ring-6 Ring-7 Rin~-8 Ring-9 Torus-1 Torus-2 Torus-3 Torus-4 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11

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

FROM TO I*

N T

u M

T K

0 Q

R J

Q

Q s

L p

E I

F I

F J

K J

G K

G L

H L

M

<-> H E

M A

E B

F c

G D

H J..1./.1.J./'!10 FLOW VEL dP Hl gprn ft/sec psi g ft 4500 6.274 0.251 0.582

4500 7.911 1.044 2.423 4500 6.274 0.255 0.593 closed 0

0 0

5000

11. 64 0.543 1.259 10000 7.563 0.612

. l. 42 5000 11.64

1. 789

. 4.152 5000 3.781 0.066 0.154 2801 2.119 0.046 0.'107 1699 1.285 0.004

(). 008 6192 4.683

. 0.103 0.240 3808 2.88

0. 014 0.032 3808 2.88 0.024 0.*056 4476 3.385 0.035 0.082 523.9 0.396 0

0.002 523.9 0.396 0

0 5024 3.8 0.143 0.331 7825 9.474 0.966 2.242 7891' 9.553 0.982 2.28 8284 10.03

.l. 082

.2. 513 closed 0

0 0

R E.v. o pg 3

v Project:

'a'/%'!.'/~

by: Palas LINEUP REPORT rev: 12/21/96 LINELIST: RING DEVIATION: 0.0106 %

dated: 12/18/96 after: 6 iterations 2 LPCI 82500, 1 LPCI 85000 and 2 cs 84500 Injecting. Nearest torus blocked.

Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all.pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE N

s PIPELINE Torus-1 Torus-2 Torus-3 DEMAND gpm 4500 5000 FLOW gprn 6218 6302 6480 l

.~

NODE DEMAND gpm p

5000 0

>>>* 4500

. FLOWS IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 19000 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 1900.0 gprn PRESSURE SET SOURCE psig A

0 B

0

<<< c G

FLOWS IN: 19000 gprn FLOWS OUT: 0 gprn NET FLOWS IN: 19000

,gprn CAL-CUL.AT'ON /Jo. ORE'i1-0003

R E.v. o PAa. A IS PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 1

rznn:r'"'

NODE ELEVATION DEMAND PRESSURE H GRADE ft gpm psi g ft A

0 p

0 0

B 0

p 0

0 c

0 p

0 0

E 0

-0.610

-1.416 F

0

.. -0.626

-1.454 G

0

-0.662

-1.538 H

0

-o. 712

-1. 652 I

0

-0.634

-1.472 J

0

-0.666

-1.547 K

.o

-0.665

-1. 544 L

0

-0.711

-1. 651 M

0

-* -0.712

-1.652 N

0

> 4500

-0.885

-2.054 p

0

> 5000

-o. 778

-1. 805 Q

0

-0.820

-1. 903 R

o*

-0.820

..i. 903 s

0

> 5000

.:2.609

-6.055 T

0

-0.967

-2.245 u

0

> 4500

-2. 011

-4.668

. :* f

~ *...

(.,AL-CUl-AT'O"' /Jo. ORE'11-0003 R E.v. o PAC.. A Ii>

P!PE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 2

.. _y......,..

PIPELINE FROM TO FLOW VEL dP Hl gpm ft/sec psi g ft CS-3A I

N.

4500 6.274 0.251 0.582

.CS3B-16 T

u 4500 7.911

1. 044 2.423 CS3B-18 M

T 4500 6.274 0.255 0.593 HPCI K

0 closed 0

0

.0 LPCI3A Q

R

o 0

0 0

LPCI3A/B J

Q 5000 3.781 0.154 0.357 LPCI3B

Q s

5000 11.64

1. 789 4.152 LPCI3C/D L

p 5000 3.781 0.066 0.154 Ring-1 E

I 1999 1.512 0.024 0.056 Ring-2 F

I 2501

.1. 892 0.008 0.018 Ring-3 F

J 3800 2.874 0.040 0.093 Ring-4 K

J

1200 0.907 0.001 0.003 Ring-5 G

K 1200 0.907 0.002 0.006 Ring-6 G

L 5280 3.993 0.049 0.113 Ring-7 L

<-> H 280.3 0.212*

b 0

Ring-8 H

M

. 280.3 0.212

o 0

Ring-9 E

M 4220 3.191 0.102 0.236 Torus-1 A

E 6218 7.529 0.610 1.416 Torus-2 B

F 6302 7.629 0.626 1.454 Torus-3 c

G 6480 7.845 o.. 662

1. 538

.Torus-4 D

H closed 0

/

0 0

,J R£v. o PAa. A /7 FIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 3

y y

v Pro)ect:

by: palas LINEUP REPORT rev: 01/03/97 LINELIST: RING DEVIATION: 0.0106 %

dated: 12/18/96 after: 6 iterations 2 LPCI @2500, 1 LPCI 85000 and 2 CS 84500 Injecting. Nearest*torus

blocked.

Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE DEMAND NODE DEMAND

)'

gpm gpm N

4500 p

5000 R

2500 s

2500 u

4500 FLOWS IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 19000 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 19000 gpm PIPELINE FLOW PRESSURE SET gpm SOURCE psig Torus-1 6218

<<< A 0

Torus-2 6302 B

0 Torus-3 6480

<<< c 0

FLOWS IN: 19000 gpm FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm NET FLOWS IN: 19000 gpm

-~

C..AL-CUL-ATIOtJ /Jo. OR£'11 -0003 R£v. o PAC... A l'i

PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 1

v V:t.'f~:IV NODE ELEVATION DEMAND PRESSURE H GRADE ft gpm psi q ft A

0 p

0.

O*

B 0

p 0

.0 c

0 p

0 0

E 0

-0.610

-1. 416 F

0

~0.626

-1.454 G

0

-~().662

-1. 5*38 H

0

-0.712

-1. 652 I

0

-Q.63.

-i. 472 J

0

-0.666

-1. 547 K

0

-0.665

- l.544 L

0

-0.711

-1.651 M

0

-0.712

-1. 652 N

0

> 4500

*-0.885

-2.054 p

0

> 5000

-0.778

-i. 805 Q

0

-0.820

-1. 903 R

0

> 2500

-0.956

-2.219 s

0

> 2500

*-i. 269

-2.945 T

0

-0.967

-2.245 u

0

> 4500

-2.011

-4.668 CAL-CUL.ATION No. oRE'f? -0003 RE.v. o

PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 2

PIPELINE FROM CS-3A

.I CS3B-16 T

CS3B-18 M

HPCI K

LPCI3A Q

.LPCI3A/B J

LPCI3B Q

LPCI3C/D L

Rinq-1 E

Rinq-2 F

Rinq-3 F

Ring-4 K

Ring-5 G

Ring-6 G

. Ring-7 L

Ring-8 ij Ring-9 E

Torus-1 A

Tprus-2 B

c orus-4 D

PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 y

TO FLOW

.qpm N

4500 u

4500.

T 4500 0

closed R

2500 Q*

5000 s

2500 p

5000 I

1999 I

2501 J

3800 J

1200 K

1200 L

5280

<-> H 280.3 M

280.3 M

4220 E

6218 F

6302 G

6480 H

closed

.J

.~

?ii/~J/~

VEL dP Hl ft/sec psi g ft 6.274 0.251 0.582 7.911 1.044 2.423 6.274

0. 255.

0.593 0

0 0

5.822 0.136 0.315 3.781 0.154 o.357 5.8~2 0.449 1.041 3.781 0.066 0.154 1.512 0~024 0.056 1.-892 0.000 0.018 2.874 0.040 0.093" 0.907 0.001 0.003 0.907 0.002 0.006 3.993 0.049 0.113 0.212 0

0 0.212 0

0 3.191 0.102 0.236 7.529. 0. 610 1.416

7. 629

o. 626

1. 454 7.845 0.662 1.538 0

0 0

CAL-CUU.T'OtJ /Jo. OREtJ7 -0003

R E.v. o PA4E A ~o pg 3

Pro)ect:

--..v..,.,.,

by: Palas LINEUP REPORT rev: 12/21/96 DEVIATION: 1.47 %

after: 4 iterations LINELIST: ring

- dated: 12/18/96 2 LPCI @5000 and 2 cs 94500 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked.

Volumetric !low rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first pipe specification were used.

NODE N

s DEMAND gpm 4500 5000 PRESSURE CONNECTIONS Node Pipeline A

Torus-1 B

>>> :Torus-2 c

Torus-3 PIPE-FLO rev 4.03 NODE.

R u

DEMAND gpm 5000 4500 NET FLOWS OUT: 19000.

gpm FLOW PRESSURE gpm psi g 6169 0

6419 0

6412

{)

NET FLOWS IN: 19000 gpm R£v. o PAC...

A~)

pg 1

NODE ELEVATION DEMAND PRESSURE

H GRADE ft gpm psi g ft 0

p 0

0 0

p 0

0 0

p 0

0 E

0

-0.600

-1.394 F

0

-0.650

-1.509 G

0

-0.649

-1. 506 H

0

-0.657

-1.525 I

0

-0.653

. -1.515 J

0

-0.716

-1.662 K

0

-0.691

-1.604 L

0

-0.652

-1. 513 M

0

-0.659

-1.53 N

0

> 4500

-0.904

-2.097 Q

0

-1.327

-3.081 R

0

> 5000

-1.87

-4.34 s

0

> 5000

-3.116

-7.233 T

0

-0.915

-2.123 u

0

> 4500

-1. 958

-4.546

..J

/

R E.V. 0 PAC.. A22 PIPE-FLO rev 4.03 pg 2

PIPELINE CS-3A 18 LPCI3A LPCI3A/B LPCI3B LPCI3C/D Ring-1 Ring-2 Ring-3 Ring-4 Ring-5 Ring-6 Ring-7 Ring-8 Ring-9 Torus-1 Torus-2 Torus-3 Torus-4 PIPE-FLO rev 4.03 FROM I

T M

Q J

Q D

E F

F K

G G

L H

E A

B c

D TO FLOW gpm N

4500 u

4500 T

4500.

closed R

5000 Q

10000 s

5000 L

closed I

2991 I

1509 J

4910 J

5090 K

5090 L

i322

<-> H 1322 M

1322 M

.3178 E

6169 F

6419 G

6412 H

closed VEL dP Hl ft/sec psi g ft 6.274 0.251 0.582 7.911 1.044 2.423 6.274 0.25?

0.593 0

0 0

11.64 0.543 1.259 7.563 0.612 1.42 11.64

1. 789 4.152 0

0 0

2.262 0.052 0.121 1.141 0.003 0.007 3.714 0*.066 0.153 3.849 0.025 0.057 3.849

.. 0.042 0.098 1.000 0.. 003 0.008 1.000 0.005 0.012 1.000 0.002 0.005 2.403 0.059 0.136 7.469 0.600 1.394 7.772 0.650 1.509 7.763 0.649

1. 506 0

0 0

CAt-CUU.T'ON /Jo. ORE'17 -0003

RE.v. o Pl1c.£ A.2.3 pg 3

by: Palas LINELIST: RING dated: 12/18/96 LINEUP REPORT rev: 12/21/96 DEVIATION: 0.29 %

after: 4 iterations 2 LPCI @3750 and 2 cs 94500 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked.

Volumetric f.low rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE DEMAND NODE DEMAND gpm gpm N

4500 R

3750 s

3750 u

4500 FLOWS IN: 0 gpm

FLOWS OUT: 16500 gpm

. NET FLOWS OUT: 16500 gpm PIPELINE FLOW PRESSURE SET gpm SOURCE psig Torus-1 5376 A

0 Torus-2 5571 B

0 Torus-3 5553

<<< c 0

FLOWS IN: 16SOO gpm FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm NET FLOWS IN: 16500 gpm CA1.-.CUL-J.T1otJ /Jo. ORE'11-0003 R £v. o Pl1~t., A ~'I PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 1

NODE ELEVATION DEMAND PRESSURE H GRADE ft gpm psi g ft A

0 p

0 0

B 0

p 0

0 c

0 p

0 0

E 0

-0.456

-1. 059 F

0

-0.490

"."'l.137 c:;

0

-0.487

~l.129 H

0

-0.500

-1.16 I

0

-0.494

-1.148 J

0

-0.526

-1.221 K

0

-0.511

-1.187 L

0

-0.492

-1.141 M

0

-0.503

-1.168 N

0

> 4500

-0.745

. -1. 73 Q

0

-0.870

-2. 021 R

0

> 3750

-1.176

-2.729 s

0

> 3750

-1. 878

-4.359 T

0

.:o.759

-1~761 u

0

> 4500

-1. 802

-4.184 C.AL-CU/...ATIOtJ IJo. ORE'11-0003 R e:v. o PAa.. A:lf PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 2

PIPELINE CS-3A CS3B-16 CS3B-18 HPCI LPCI3A LPCI3A/B LPCI3B LPCI3C/D Ring-1 Ring-2 Ring-3 Ring-4 Ring-5 Ring-6 Ring-7 Ring-8 Ring-9 Torus-1 Torus-2 Torus-3 Torus-4 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 FROM I

T M

K Q

J Q

L E

F F

K G

G L

Ji E

A B

c D

TO FLOW gprn N

4500 u

4500 T

4500 0

closed R

3750 Q

7500 s

3750 p

closed I

.2545 I

1955 J

3615 J

3885 K

3885 L

1668

<-> H 1668 M

1668 M

2832 E

5376 F

5571 G

5553 H

closed

.J

.J nrzn~

VEL dP Hl ft/sec psi g ft 6.274 0.251 0.582 7.911 1.044 2.423 6.274

0. 255.

0.593 0

0 0

8.732

. 0.305

0. 709 5.672 0.345 0.800 8.732 1.007 2.338 0

0 0

1.924 0.038 0.089 1.479 0.005 0.011 2.734

0. 036 0.084 2.938 0.014 0.033 2.938 0.025 0.058 1.262 0.005 0.012 1.262 0.008 0.019 1.262 0.003 0.008 2.142 0.047 0.109 6.509 0.456 1.059 6.744 0.490 1.137 6.723 0.487 1.129 0

0 0

CP.1-Cu.L-J.TIOtJ /Jo. ORE'l7 -0003*

RE.v. o PA~t.. A:l' pg 3

Project:

by: Palas LINELIST: RING dated: 12/18/96 LINEUP REPORT rev: 12/21/96

'1.Z'/ Zt'!V6

~

DEVIATION: 0. 0179 *%

after: 5 iterations 1 LPCI 95000 and 2 CS 94500 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked.

Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid pr'operties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE N

u PIPELINE Torus-1 Torus-2 Torus-3 DEMAND

gprn

>>> *4500

>>> *4500 FLOW gpm 4592 4719 4690

.J

.J NODE DEMAND gpm s

5000 FLOWS IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 14000 gprn NET FLOWS OUT: 14000 gpm PRESSURE SET SOURCE psig A

0 B

0

<<< c 0

FLOWS IN: 14001 gprn FLOWS OUT: 0

gprn NET FLOWS IN: 14001

gprn CAL-CULJ.T'o" No. ORE'11-0003 R E.v. o PAaE A~ 7 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 1

~.

NODE ELEVATION ft A

0 B

0 c

0 E

0 F

0 G

0 H

0 I

0 J

0 K

0 L

0 M

0 N

0 Q

0 s

0 T

0 u

0 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 DEMAND gpm p

p p

> 4500

> 5000

> 4500

~~l:Y rr:I y

PRESSURE H GRADE psi g ft 0

0.

0 0

-0.333

-0.772

-0.351

-0.816

-0.347

-0.806

-0.365

-0.848

..:.o.359

..:.o. 833

-0.366

..:.o. 850

-0.359

-0.834

-0.354

-0.822

-0.370

-0.860

-0.610

-1.415

-0.520

-1.207

-2. 3 09

-5.359

-0.626

-1. 452

-=1.669

-3.875 R£v. o PAC.. A ':lf pg 2

PIPELINE FROM TO FLOW VEL dP Hl gpm ft/sec psi g ft I

CS-3A I

N 4500 6.274 0.251 0.582 CS3B-16 T

u 4500 7.911 1.044 2.423 CS3B-18 M

T 4500 6.274 0.255 0.593 HPCI K

0

-closed 0

0 0

LPCI3A Q

R closed 0

0 0

LPCI3A/B J

Q 5000 3.781 0.154 0.357 LPCI3B Q

s 5000 11.64

1. 789

. 4.152 LPCI3C/D L

p

-closed 0

0 0

Ring-1 E

I 2074 1.569 0.026 0.060

Ring-2 F

I 2426 "i. 83 5 0.007 0.017 Ring-3 F

J 2293

1. 734 0.015

0. 035 Ring-4 K

J

2707 2.047 0.007 0.016 Ring-5 G

K 2707 2.047 0.012

0. 028 Ring-6 G

L 1983 1.499 0.007 0.017 Ring-7 L

<-> H 1983 1.499 0.011 0.026 Ring-8 H

M 1983 1.499 0.005

0. 011 Ring-9 E

M 25i7 1.904

0. 038 0.087 Torus-1 A

E 4592 5.559 0.333 0.772 Torus-2 B

F 4719

5. 713 0.351 0.816 Torus-3 c

G 4690 5.678 Q.347 0.806 Torus-4 D

H closed 0

0 0

CA1.-CU£.Ar1orJ /Jo. ORE'17 -0003 RE.v. o PAa.f.. A~"

PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 pg 3

FAX COVER SHEET Thursday, January, 16, 1997 12:56:25 PM

~ Note:

To: John Stang At: U.S. NRC Reactor Projects Ill Fax#: 1-(301)415-3861 From: Karl Gross Voice: 815-941-2920 x3710 Fax: 15 pages and a cover page.

Vibration Data for F. Spangenberg and B.

Rybak

_J

. **~~

y Query1 1118197

.. ~......

Ou1ry1 1/11117

~

-~*

Thursday. January. Tl. Tn11f:g:~ l'Jl

>0.700

.J

.J Cuary1 1118/17

t c

Intelli-Trend(R)

Multi-Trend Display en.r STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR.* STATION UNIT 2

~

=i 0.35 c

at U2 C.1S A -iSH

~

.198 OVERALL

~

0.00 0.35

~

.. facl U2 C.1S A -3EA

~

"*t., ** 1...

OUERALL

ii

0.

0.35

a.

U2 C.1S A A CL u

OOERALL lb 0.00 c

0.35

.203 U2 C.15 A -3U.

DUE RALL 0.00 J... v 15T 0.35 U2 C/S A -3Hll

.IZ't DUE RALL 0.00 1.111'94 l/*95 1.11 96 1.11.197 i

1me in

&Ill* fl.ow

. RA.t TE~*,

UUOER Jillll SI

~-f.114E UI t6A.l

.¥....

CL u

Cll c *-

0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35

/91-Intelli-Trend<R> Multi-Trend. Display STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2

~ ~

.. 1'1'?.

.12.3

~ ~

.n-1

\\

- m l/l/95 1/1, 9&

Time.

Year!:

lM l/1 U2 C/S B -iSH OUERf\\l..L U2 C/S B A

OUERALL U2 c,,s B -3U*

OVERALL.

U2 C/S B. -3H1 DUERALL

/97 c

~

CIJ

a.

u cu "'. "

c **-

0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 Intelli-Trend(R) Multi-Trend Display STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNlT 3

.lOZ

~

.i~I

~

.118

~

tl~

Time in Years U3 C/S A OUERALL *.

U3 Cl'S A OUERALL

-iSH

-3A U3 Cl'S A -3U*

OUERALL U3 Cl'S A *-3HJE OVERALL I

i c

~

Cl)

~

Cll

~

Cll c:

Cll

~

'° '° N u; en N

c.n l

~

ca Cl en 0 -...

c.n

';f Intell.i-Trend(R) c Multi-Trend Display Cil a.

~

STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNCT 3 c-..

0.35

~

c..

~

U3 C/S B -~SH

~

OUERALL

~'"'

co co 0.00 N

°'

0.35 N

&n U3 C/S B -3A l

i. "'t.

OUERALL

~

~Ml Cll 0.00 0..

u 0.35

°' "' "

U3 C/S B -3UME c....

OVERALL 0.00 0.35 U3 C/S B -3H11 a 124 OUERALL 0.00 11'11'91'

/l/95 11'11'96 l/11'97 Time in Years.

1 ca (I

Milt FlbiJ Q -

&n

1.

..w nJ...

a.

u...

c....

0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35

.0.00 lntelii~TrendCR> Multi-Trend Display STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2

.obt.f

.. o&l

__.~---..---------_......_.._._ __,__ __ __.

1/1/94

Time 1n Year U2 LPCI A -+SH OVERALL U2 LPCI A Pt OVERALL U2 LPCI F\\ -3U*

OUERALL

'/. *V f 'T U2 LPCI A -3H*

OVERALL

~.

..M...

GI

a.

u GI c *-

0.35 0.00 D.35 0.00 0.35 Intelli-TrendCR> Multi~Trend Display.

STAT£0N: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 t.**...

IO'l U2 LPCC B -iSH OUERALL U2 LPCI B A OUERALL U2 LPCI B -3UJt OVERALL o.oo+-------------+------------------1----~------------1

'l*'i f5T 0.35 0.00 U2 LPCI B -3HtR

OVERALL

.._..__...__......._._..--___.._~_...~--.----1-+1-...--.-...-...-.-..,.....-t 1/l/91-1/1/97 Time in Years L>AJOEa?. \\Joff,,Je; li~l

..w,..

CIJ

a.

u CIJ c....

0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35.

0.00 0.35 0.00 lntelli-TrendCR) Multi-Trend Display STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 U2 LPCI C -iSH OVERALL U2 LPCI C A OUERALL U2 LPCI C -3U~

.131:>

OVERALL

.10'5

t.-V

~T U2 LPCI C -3H~

OVERALL

-.--t~---------........._ ________ --1 1,,1,,9+

Time in Year Uul\\tt \\lt.t~~

Te'-t SJ' -

co co N

en

~

f1I GI

c.

u GI c

0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 Intelli-TrendCR) Multi-Trend Display STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2

~..

U2 LPCl D *~1-SH OVERALL U2 LPCI D A OUERALL U2 LPCI D -3U*

~ t'fti

OVERALL

.. llfo t-'i I ST U2 LPCI D -3H*

OUERALL 1/1/94 Time in Year UUbEf Vol lat\\e-

-t-i;-~+

cu.

ci u*

c 0.35 0.00 0.35,,

0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35,,

Intelli-TrendCR> Multi-Trend Display STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 3

.ofJ/

..191

~

.D~

Ti me in Years U-3 LPCl.A-4SH OUERALL U-3 LPCI A-3A OUERALL

U-3 LPCI A-3Ut1 OUERALL x:. Y l~T U-3 LPCI A-3Ht1 OUERALL

.J c

.K "

GI Cl; u

GI "'

c....

Intelli-TrendCR) Multi-Trend Display STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNlT. 3

. 0.35

,Z.07-0.00...--------..---------...-------11 0.35 U-3 LPCI B-iSH OUERM.L

U-3 LPCI B-3A *.

0.00 +------------------+---------

0. 35

.Ill

0.00 +--------+---------+-------------t 0.35

.115 0.00...__. __

""""9-___

~_.,_--.......... __...---__..

1/1/9+

Time in Years OUERALL U-3 LPCI B-3U*

OUERALL r:.r 1sr U-3 LPCI B-3H*

OUERALL c

c

~

c *-

0.3.5 0.00 Intelli-Trend(R) Multi-Trend Display STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 3

.,,3.

+-------------~----------+-~--------~

0.35

.*. t.

.131-o.oo+-------------1--------------+---------~

0.35 o.oo,._ ______ ---1--------+--------1 0.35 U-3 LPCI C-+SH OVERALL u~3 LPCI c-~A OUERALL U-3 LPCI C-3U*

OUERALL U-3 LPCI C-3H*

OUERALL 0.00.._ ___ _...... __ __.. __ ___. ___ T-""T-_________............,....,.__,,__.....,......._ __

~

1/L,9i Time 1n Years c

l c

(

1 c..

c

.M IQ GI Cl.

u Cll "'

c....

. 0.35 0.00 Intelli-Trend(R) Multi~Trend Display STATION: DRESDEN NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 3 0.35

.15.5 0.00 +-------+-------....,__--------.

0.35

.1~5

. 0.00.

U-3 LPCt D-.. SH OUERALL U-3 LPCI D-3A OUERALL U-3 LPCI D-3U.

OUERALL

+-------+------------+---------.

0.35

--l--""----------1----

.115 0.00.._ ______ _.... ______...............................,_...._ _

l/1/91-Time in Years U-3 LPCI 0-3.-

0UERALL co co N c,;

en N

en

ML17187A836

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Title:

5.0 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

Title:

5.0 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search