ML17333B092

MAAP4 Analyses of DC Cook Containment Response to Small Break Loca

ML17333B092
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	10/09/1997
From:	Henry R FAUSKE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML17333B093	List: ML17333B092 ML17334B657
References
NUDOCS 9710270156
Download: ML17333B092 (79)

Text

Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:0900M FAUSKE AND ASSOCIATES'CTOBER 9,

1997 PRESENTATION svcoava~ss evxom PDR AOGCK 05000815 P

PDR

4 ANAIVSKS OF 'AiED.C. COOK CGNT NY RESPGNSE TG S54V L BREAKI QSS-GF-CGGI AWE ACCIDENTS R. E. Henry Pauske A Associates, Inc.

Presented to USNRC White Flint Gffices Rockville, Maryland Gctober 9, 1997

OVI'IINK Introduction to the MAAP4computer code.

Benchmarking calculations for this effort.

Comparison of the containment pressure and ice melt rate with I.OTIC-3 for 6" and 2" cold leg breaks.

Comparison of the RCS break flowwith the NOYRUMIPmodel for 6" and 2" cold leg

, breaks.

Comparison of RCS break Qow with a large break BSA calculation.

Comparison of the containment response given DSA mass and energy releases.

Comparison with the Westinghouse ice condenser experiments.

o Important input parameters and sensitivity studies for the B.C. Cook nuclear plant evaluations.

Results for postulated small break I GCAs at the B.C. Cook nuclear lant.

BASIS PGR INVIKSTIGATINGA SPECTRUM GF I GCA CONDITIONS AI OCA must be large enough for the containment sprays to be activated and needed over the long term.

For a large I OCA, the RCS willdepressurize, I PI willbe initiated and the core willbe cooled with cold water leaving the RCS break location.

In this case, the containment sprays would only be required early in the accident.

The sensitivity calculations show that the utilization of containment sprays is the greatest for small I OCA conditions.

The utilization of containment sprays is determined by the transient containment pressure including (a) the sprays turning on ifthe pressure increases to 2.9 psig and turned off at 1.5 psig, and (b) the sprays run continuously once they are activated.

Both are evaluated.

IXIRODUCTIONTO 'IHE MWU'4 COMPVIER CODE EPRI owned code and used internationally.

Developed and maintained under a QA program in compliance with 10CFRSO, App. B.

MAAZ4is structurally organized as a modular code and includes models for:

the reactor core response (BWR 4 PWR),

the reactor coolant system response (BWR 4 PWR),

the steam generators (PWR),

the containment response (BWR 4 PWR),

the contributions of the emergency safeguard features (BWR & PWR), and the response of adjacent plant building (auxiliary building, etc) where appropriate (BWR 4 PWR)..

As an integral system model, the focus of MAAP4 is on the total plant response to postulated accident conditions, with particular emphasis on accident management evaluations.

As an integral system model, the 1VQMP4 focus is on the best-estimate evaluations for all phenomena evaluated.

MD4V'4 Modular Accident Analysis Program M44U'4 is a modular computer program written in fortran and is directed at evaluating the integral response of the RCS, containment and ESFs to a broad spectrum of possible accident conditions.

The MMQ'4 code is fast running (variable timestep) and has been developed for:

PWRNSSS (B&W, CE, + K) designs large dry containments, subatmospheric containments, ice condenser containments.

BWR NSSS (ABB + GE) designs Mark I containments, Mark IIcontainments, Mark ID containments.

CAZG)U NSSS designs Ontario Hydro containment designs with the vacuum building, AECL design with a separate containment for each reactor.

VVERNSSS designs reactor confinement including the bubble tower.

Fugen NSSS design single containment with a suppression pool.

HV(5100997.A

MMQ'4 Modular Accident Analysis Program (Continued)

MAIAP4modeling includes:

Response to LOCA or inadequate cooling conditions.

Models for core degradation, core melt progression, debris quenching, etc. necessary to evaluate severe accident conditions.

A generalized containment model that promotes extensive containment nodalization ifdesired.

This generalized containment is used for all containment types listed above.

M44&'4 contains a dynamic benchmarking capability that enables the best-estimate models to be benchmarked with available experiments and experience.

These benchmarks can be easily repeated as the code evolves.

HV$ 100997-h

Steam Outlot (to turbino)

Steam Generator Steam Outlet (to turbine)

Feedwator Inlet (from con4onser)

Main Coolant Pump Feedweter Inlet (from con4neer)

Coro Reactor Voo@H 4 Loop Westinghouse Reactor Coolant System

Cohl Lee Steam Geneakr Cold Leg Tubes Peseurtzer~

12 Leg

$3 8

3'Vr@nkten'oops B ~ IntennecHate Leg 1 'Broken'oop (NodaMzation Same as Unbroken Loop)

FlNIce 3-1 PNR primary iyitcm nodalizatiea for Ncstinghousc 4-loop design.

I-.i":r34Bt%i%&+'.r8%5@Ci@liKWKWl%~~.~ ~.-I';%.'~~~t=~

t I

S* &

~

~

~

. //'//J//r///lrr/-

.r'/:

-:,Ir(rr.

/,/.

.~!i~.-/i~

r/r

~

I

%i'

/i yirrrr~rr~rrirrrrr

~

//ri r;,/r'rrr/r//r/r',

r/

~' '

//////////r////r.'.

/.

/

'::s

'+

/rrrriirrrirrirrr/

/I r;

.r i

~'I

,i ii ir r/.

rrrr.. y 'yrriri r/r

'I"

'I'/

//

.Ilr.

5.

//

r/

=/r'W K-bl ii

~i FN.rZ. "'CMtl &'C%C III i$

~t Irr i/i

~TT A

I

'i r ~ r r

I.'I

)'.

ii r,

/yg A

/0~

i ri ii ii ri

'sr

,'ii CP ~,;

+r'ri

i

'C' p

I

/////////rrr rr rr.

r cl

'h ii AIr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrPSNI/g P/Jill//SF ÃYISiÃXIIIPYPllixrirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrri rrrrrrrrr/rrrrrirr'rJ yt PI I

~II

'rt?~>>

Pf =gI'~W'-~I, ', I."Ipm

~

~

5 I

W W

)J e'

biol IX Se.

1,;I.

~

l.

rl

Upper Plenum Compartment Ice Condenser a

Ice Condenser Door Dead End

,'ompartment 0 ~

~

. 0 0

p~o<g'aio Cavity

'.0."o '.0 e

- 0

~

A a+gA4'+

a o".

KS93N007.COA 11M' o....

~

~

CV:

b:

a. y O'

0 Lower Compartment Figure 1 Containment diagram for an ice condenser plant.

VOLUMEII DATE: 05/01/94 REVISION: 0.0

Upper Plenum Upper Compartment Ice Condenser lce Condenser Door Dead End Compartment

)C.P '

P~cs ap P~Nest.jy~P AAOSlON.COW>4@0 Cavity 4

~

~

Lower Compartment D. C. Cook 10 Node Containment Model

768'4'48'4'1 5'.7)1'pper Compartment Upper Dome Region Upper Compartment Lower Dome Region (Fan)

J, Q

8 EnvIronm8nt Q>>

(Skimmer)

+q, (Sammer)

J8 715'11'ce Cond.

Upper Plenum V

715 711'pper ompartment hndrical (Loakago)

J11

( 4I ro) 808p or )oo 8oo PZR 4 SG Endo auro8 Enc)o8ur88 V

Ice ond.

88

~

top oooo) 841 4%'4 re>1 Ioor)

Qve Ran0o Malny Sorf~) m'4'n 840.7't)oeoe or op oocrc) 508'%'ower Compartment Qv~

Annular Compt.

Q 821'4'Af)nulus)

Cavity J,

(Tunnel) ru8)4oo07.cort 1&~

D.C. Cook MAAP4 10 Node/18 Junction Containment Model HUG'rM297.A

~

~

~ ~

~

~

~

k" a

~

~

~

S

~

~

~

MAJOR BENCHMARKS MAAP4 yster Creek loss-of-feedwater (BWR)

C ope each Bottom turbine trip tests (BWR) okai-2 turbine trip (BWR) rystal River loss-of-feedwater and stuck n PORV (PWR)

Current Dynamic Bench marks Davis-Besse loss-of-feedwater (PWR) rown's Ferry fire (BWR)

I-2 (RCS)

I-2 containment HEBUS OFT-FP-2 Y (0-5 hrs.)

Y (0-5 hrs.)

ORA (BWR R PWR)

W ice condenser tests Ice condenser DB calculation W SG tests 0

aterial creep COVE aerosol tests RNL fission product release tests DEMONA aerosol tests ACE ACE experiments ETA experiments

4 CQMENC S

KEPORTEB XN 'lKKGPEN LITERA'PURE S. J. Lee, et al., "Benchmark of the YKDREll.2 Containment Hydlrogen MHxing Expex iment Using the MVkAP4 Co@e," SUbBDttedl fox Novembex, I997 ANS meeting.

C. Y. PaRk, et al., "Validation Exercise fox the MIAA3P4 Containment Morsel," Hfth International Confex'ence on Simulation Methods in Nuclear Engineering, Montxeal, Canada, September S-II, I996.

H. Xixmka, et al., "An Analysis of Hydlrogen MUoa'mg andi Bistribution Px'oMem ISP-35 Using MA%F4 Code," PSA'95 Px oceedlings, November, I995.

BENC CAICULATIGNS FQR THE D.C. CQGK SBI.QCA SUMP FJtI I EVALUATIGNS Containment pressure and ice melt comparison withI0'rIC-3.

6" cold leg LOCA.

2" coM leg I OCA.

0 Yhe break Qow x'ate spectrum used in the MlAAP4scopHlg calculathons compax'ed with the NOTRUMIP model.

6" coM leg LOCA.

2" cold l.eg I GCA.

Yhe break How x ate for a large break I OCA DSA condition.

The contamment xesponse given BSA mass and energy xeleases to containment.

Comparison of the MlAAP4ice condensex model with the VYestinghouse experiments.

WHATIS EXPECTED FRGM THE BENCHMAjRKCALCUIATIGNS Assure consistency between "best estimate" and "design basis" analyses.

Assure consistency of the MAAP4 ice condenser model with the experimental basis large I GCA, medium I.GCA, small IGCA.

CGMtPAiRXSON VVXYHTIKE LOYLC-3RESUI I' This compaxison is an ev"luation of the respective containment models.

The boundaxy conditions fox both evaluations axe the mass and energy x'eleases fxom a 6" and a 2" cold leg IOCA as calculated by NOYRlUMP.

Given the NGYRM4P mass and energy xeleases and the specification of the Cook containment, the x'esulting containment xesponse fox the tvvo models can be corn pax'ed.

D.G.GOOK 6-INCH LOC A MAAP4 (TEXITI F)

LOTIC-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT) 0 0

TIME Comparison of the LOTIC-3 and MAAP4 ice depletion rate for a six-inch diameter cold let LOCA (NOTRUMP) for the D.C. Cook Unit 2.

D.C.COOK 6-lNCH LOCA MAAP4 (TEXITI~

)

LOTIG-3 (NOMINAL IGE MELT)

()

0 TIME Comparison of the calculated D.C. Cook Unit 2 containment pressure for LOTIC-3 and MAAP4. The RCS blowdown is common to each analysis and is calculated for a six-inch diameter cold leg break using NOTRUMP.

D.C.

COOK 2-INCH LOCA MAAP4 (TEX)TI

)

LOTIG-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT)

()

T IME Comparison of the LOTIC-3 ice depletion rate for a two-inch diameter cold leg LOCA with the MAAP4 calculation using the same mass and energy inputs from the NOTRUMP calculation.

D.C.

COOK 2-INCH LOCA

()

8(

0 MAAP4 (TEXITI

)

LOTIC-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT)

(!

()) ()

0 ()

< 0 ooo(xSr (N)()n'o(go cx())0

()%)

((())(r)()()ar)(

~<)a~ ~ 9

'Q$>

()

T IME A comparison of the LOTIC-3 containment pressure calculation, biased for maximum containment pressure, with the nominal MAAP4 calculation with the accident initiator being a two-inch diameter cold leg LOCA as represented by NOTRUMP.

D.C.

COOK 2-INCH LOCA

~ ~

~

p

~o

~ o

~

1

~ ~

A h 4

~ ~

~P

~

~

~

~

0 ~ ~0 ~

~~

~ ~

~

~

0 0

O~

~ ~

~ ~

~

~

~ ~

~ 0 f+y0 h 0 h h h

h 6 h AIAAPh/Vp,

~

~

e

~

~

~ ~ ~

~ t 0

ICCRMIX 1Mxaxnr $ tq(~RNaPQ>< l~<

UPPER COMPARTMENT MAAP4 (TEXITI LOTIC-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT)

LONER COMPARTMENT MAAP4 (TEXITI=

)

LOTIC-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT)

TIME Comparison of the upper and lower containment compartment temperatures for a LOTIC-3 calculation biased for maximum containment pressure and the hQdd'4 representation with the accident initiator being a two-inch diameter cold leg LOCA as represented by NOTRUMP.

C3 Llj CO CXl IVI~I II~

MOIIV LOOt SALAS ASIA I~

~ II~

III~

IUCVI MOSIV LOO ~ SSlll ASOUS LOUIS COOS I IL001 I~ Ut IO 1Ct tUVt SUCIIOV

~ll IVS ~ UULSS OI tVVtS ~ 01 lACV ~ SS SSSIS ~ IO I SUUSL ~ OI Otl1AIIOUAL SI tVUAS IS

~

UUVOIS OI Otl1AIIOVAI SAA ~ VVtS I~ I

~UUSIS OI OtlSAIIOUAL CUA10LV~ tUUtl I~ I

~AIA ~ AOV

~ ASLS I I 0

500

]000

) 500 TIME SEC A comparison of the instantaneous mass flow rates for the MAAP4 primary system and NOTRUMP assuming a six-inch cold leg LOCA.

o D

LU I

Ql z0 I

Q cv Ch IOtll~I'I~

~Ollll LOOt SALAS Sill I~

~ I ~I III~

LUCVI

~lllllLOOt SALll ASOVC LOUIS COWL tLOOA I~ W 'IO ACt tUUt SVCIIOU C ~ SS

~IN AVUSIA Ot tlwl ~ 01 SACII llt SVSISO IO I

~ UOSLA Ot OtlllflllllSI tUUtl IS I AVUSSA 0I Stilllllllllll~Ultl L~

I UVOSLA Ot OtllltlllllCVAASNO tVltl I~ I SAIA till LASLS I I III LLl 0

500 TIME SEC 1000 1500 A comparison of the instantaneous energy release to the containment for NOTRUMP and the MAAP4 primary system model assuming a six-inch cold leg LOCA.

V\\

ED X

IrtlIII~

~11111 IOOt Ollll 111 ~

IS

~ II~

III~

ISCSI

~lollo loot Sllll llotl iorll corti IIOOO I~ vt Io lct tort IvcIICV 1 lll Irl SUSlll OI tVWS Iol ~ 1CV lit OVSICO Io I

~VOOIS OI otl11'Ilooll SI tortl I~ I OVOSIS OI otll~IIollI SOS tlotl i~ I Olrllo OI OII11II011I CVCSOIS ~ tootl N I 4

IOIlllllloIllllOSIS O

0 0

6 G

6 O

O O

O 0

500 1000 l500 TIME SE C A comparison of the integral mass release to containment for NOTRUMP and the MAAP4 RCS model assuming a six-inch cold leg LOCA.

Itt o

)ettl II~

Ololl~ LOOt Olllllilt I~

~ II~

III~

IUCN) lllllV~ 00t Oltllllltt LOU)V COVt) )LOCO I~ Ut 10 OCt tVUt CUC)IOV C ll'I IVl OVUlll OI tVVUO ~ OO llCN ~lt ll~)IO 10 I

~UOOIO Of Otlll))CULL ~I tVOtl I~ I

~VOOIO OI Otlll~IOULI OVO tVVtl I ~

~

OVOOLO Ot Otlll)IOVl) OUCOOIO ~ tVVtl ll

~

I~ )OOOOICD 1llLC Ol)l o

~

0 O

O O

Itt Cl Cl C9 Itt LLJ LLl 0

500 TIME SEC

]000 1500 The integral energy released to the containment for NOTRUMP and the MAAP4 RCS models assuming a six-inch cold leg LOCA.

TSNI~II~

444414 LOOt 44ILC 4414 I~

~ ~II IIII IVCVI 400414

~00t 44114 44411 LOTTO COWL t1000 Ll Vt 10 OC ~ tINt 4VCIIOV 4 lll 144 440410 Ot tVWO ~ 04 LLCV lit 414'llO 10 I

~VVOL~ Ot ONOLIIOVLL CI tVVt4 Il I

~4441 ~ Ot Otl441IOVLI 444 tVVtl s4 I

~VV410 Ol Otl041100LL 04440IVO tVVtl I~

~

0

~LIL 1400 11411 I I LLI CO CQ LJJ O

CI tK o

C)

C4 CL tD 0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 TIME SEC Comparison of the MAAP4 and NOTRUMP instantaneous mass flow rates for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.

o 0

LLJ I

Ql CV 0

I OO I~ 1 ~I II~

NOIIS l041 NIIS ISIS I~

~ ~II III~

ISSSI NOSIS l001 SSIIS ICOSI SO%IS 4001I tl041 IS 01 IO Sct 1401 ISCIIOS 4 III ISI 040SIS 01 14014

~ 01 ISCO II1 SI ~IIO IO

~

4404IS 01 0141 ~'IIONl 41 1041 ~

IS I SSOOIO 01 01ISSIIOSSl 411 140tS I~ I 4404IO 41 01I11IIOSll 4414410 ~ tNtS IS I

~IIS 1104 ISII~ I I LLj LLI 0

0 Q

0 LLj I

0 CL 0

IOOO 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO TIME SEC Comparison of the MAAP4and N(%RUMP values for instantaneous energy flow to the containment for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.

Irtl~ II~

~ OOCIN IOOt lllll11IC I~

~ ~I\\

IIII INCNI

~ OOCIN IOO ~ llllllloll IV%IS COUII tl001 I~ Vt IO Nlt tUNt

~ UCIION C lll INI NUNCIO OI tUSt1 IO~ ICCS lit Ol ~'IIV IO I

~UNOI1 OI OtlSIIIONll ll tIStl I~ I

~ISOI1 OI Otl11IIONII SSS tINtl IC I NUN~I1 OI Otl1 ~ IIONll CNCNOIN~ tUNI~

I~ I INIION~ ICO I~lll OCI1 0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 TIME SEC Comparison of the integrated mass releases for the MAAP4 and NOTRUMP for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.

Vera~ II~

~ SOSLV LOOP SSLSS OSIS I~

~ OII IIII IVCIII

~101IV Loop OSL11 ssovl Loel1 covpl PL001 Is vp IO 1cp pvvt svcvISV c slv Ivo Vvesl1 ot tvvts I01 lsee 1st svslle Io I

~VOSIS OI OtlSSIIOVLL ~I FOOtS IS I

~VOSIS OI OtlOSIIOVOI 111 tVVPS I~ I OOVOLS 0$ oplIIIISVLL 01110IVS pvvts I~

I I~Il~ Sl'ICS I~ SLS SSVS Z

IA 0I-Cl CI O

0 l000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 TIME SEC Integrated energy release to the containment for MAAP4 and NOTRUMP for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.

CD IIP P P I 0

WESTINGHOUSE ANAI.YSIS 0000 0

0 00 0

0 0

0 O

0 0 0 O

QIS0 0 00m 10 15 TIME SEC 20 30 Comparison of the MAAP4 break flow rate for a large break LOCA with that used in D.C. Cook design basis analyses.

IIIAII 0

WESjIHGHOUSE ANALYSIS cKa I

Ch Ch 4

4 44 4

4 44 4 4

4 4

4 o

o 4

10 15 TIME SEC 20 30 Comparison of the MAAP4 and design basis calculations for the rate of energy release into the D.C. Cook Unit l containment.

CD 0

00 0

0 0

0 O

0 0

0 0

0 NAAPC WESTINGHOUSE ANALYSIS 00 0 000 OO 0 OOEISOO 0

0 0

0 0

8 0

10 15 TlME SEC 30 Comparison of the integrated break flow rate to containment for MAAP4 and the design basis assessment.

~Pl PC dK0 na Ch Ch C9 IK LSj LLJ NAAPi WESTINGHOUSE ANALYSIS 0

0 0

40 0

0 0

4 4

0 4

0 0

10 15 TIME SEC 20 30 Comparison of the integrated energy release to containment for MAAP4 and the design basis calculation.

t)AA)'1 I ()H( lt C()N)'A)(It)lN I

( I)

()AA) ~

))I I rk c()t)l'Akin( Nl (I)

Nl:i)IN(,))()l)S( ANA) Y!>IS (I ()HI k)

HI '.)IN( l)()l)SE'NAI Y'i( i (()Vl'I It)

C)I I (H

() I I II

() II II

() ))

II

()

(I t)()

--"b-n C) (I

()) (I)I )4( gl )(g,)))g))

'.>0 100 150 200 T INf

. l CANf)!i 2'.) ()

>') ()

Comparison of the upper and lower compartment containment pressures using the MAAP4 code with design basis calculation input for mass and energy releases.

I> I Ir I

I

(

I (II 0')

IIA>>I e I I)Ht N I:IIIII>A(I(IIINI lr)

II(II>I>1 IIPP( II CIIIII>AltIIIINI I l )

Hl '> I INCIIUUS(

ANAI I'>I!i II IIH( N )

Hl '

I INCIIOUS(

ANAI 1'.i('i IIII'I'tIl)

)

()II

(()(I 8

()()

V)

()

() 0 (l

()() ()

,()))!

() ()() Q

()

() ()()

() ) ()()>

~ l1>I)fJ >I I

I> I

((

I

( )()

I-t I

tl.

Q " II I I ()

II 0

II II II IIII(I 0

')0 I00 I'.)0 20()

I I N I

'. ) I (: ( ) N I ) '. I 2')()

<') ()

Comparison of the temperatures in the lower and upper containment compartments between the MAAP4 code and the design basis calculations using the existing design basis calculations for mass and energy releases into the containment atmosphere.

Table Com arison 1.

Comparison of the hQ~'4 containment model and the LOTIC-3 calculations for a six-inch cold leg LOCA.

2.

Comparison of the MAAP4 containment model and the LOTIC-3 code for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.

3.

Comparison of the MAAP4 and NOTRUMP mass and energy releases for a six-inch cold leg LOCA.

4.

Comparison of the MAAP4 and NOTRUMP mass and energy releases for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.

5.

Comparison of the MAAP4 and large break LOCA mass and energy releases.

6.

Comparison of the MAAP4 containment response with the design basis analysis.

Result Good comparison between the calculated ice consumption rates for both codes and the transient containment pressure history.

Good comparison between the ice melting rate, as well as consistent representations of the containment pressure history and the calculated temperature histories in the upper and lower compartments.

Agreement between the integral mass and energy releases to the containment.

Agreement between the integral mass and energy releases to the containment atmosphere.

Agreement between the integral mass and energy releases to the containment atmosphere.

Good agreement between the transient containment pressure and temperature histories in the upper and lower corn artments.

BENC G WITH'HHE %lFSTINGHOUSE ICE CONDENSER EXPERIMENTS The Westinghouse ice condenser experiments have been run for a variety of break sizes.

These experiments were performed for a full scale segment of the ice condenser with an ice basket height that is three-fourths of the plant.

'he principal information from the experiments is the depressurization of the simulated RCS, the pressure in the containment lower compartment,.the pressure in the containment upper compartment, the temperatures of gases exiting the top of the ice condenser, the drain temperature of water leaving the ice condenser and the approximate ice melted.

It is important that the integral system model be consistent with the experiments since the ice melt rate is a major contribution to the integral containment response and is also an important component of the water inventory in the circulation sump.

MIAAJP dynamic benchmarks are being performed for three different break sizes investigated in these experiments which are generally representative of a large LOCA (Test A), a medium size LOCA (Test C) and a small LOCA (Test F), and decay heat steaming condition (Test K). These benchmarks are performed using the dynamic benchmarking capability in the MAAJP4 code.

IN ERHEOIATE OECX OOORS RECEIVER VESSEL LATTICE FRAIIES ICE BASKET BOILER VESSEL RUPTURE OISK ANO ORIFICE 0 ISCIIARGE PIPE OIVIOER OECK INLET OOORS TURNING VANES 0 ISCNARGE NOZZLE Isometric view of boiler and receiver vessels at the Waltz Milltest facility.

LOWER COMPARTMENT MAAP4 DATA UPPER COMPARTMENT MAAP<

DATA I

IAI CeJ 40 I AI Ot.

liJ)

I!I O'I L Aj IY.

i/ ~r II I

lg II II I

4 4I 4

10 T IMF.

15

7. J 3ll Comparison of the upper (solid lines) and lower compartment pressures (dashed lines) for the MAAP4 containment model with an ice condenser exit temperature of and the experimental data from Test A (large break LOCA) of the Westinghouse ice condenser experiments.

hlAAP4 Q

MEASURED tCE BASS AT THE ENO OF THE EXPERIBEHT I

I CD RES y TIME (SECONDS)

Cornparitson of the cakuhtion of ioe meIting for the MAAP4 nodd with an ice condenser exit temperature of P

and the end point. remaining ice mass for Test A (hrge bmdc LOCA).

Ch O>

Cb CD Ql Ql

AI il W

Cr CO CO Uj QC Cl.

I M

(rJ COill II LOSER COMPARTMENT MAAP4 DATA UPPER COMPARTMENT MAAP4 OATA llW ill C3 CAj t IJ.

4esasela &%%4JNtlttttAtWCl4tttttt4%4ltW4~4J4%4AAIAL4ll444JAA4AAtAIJtl$4RS Jtll44144tatt4414144LII TD4t4t4LI 44t444IIAII tIAIIJJilLAIIDDIIIJDJLIItDDD T I M l'.

Comparison of the upper and lower compartment pressures for the MAAP4 model using an ice condenser exit temperature of with the measured behavior of Test C (medium LOCA).

SAAP4

'EASURED ICE BASS AT THE END OF TKE EXPERIBENT Pg4'p TINE (SEGOIIIIDS)

~anon of the MA@% ice mdt history with aa ice amdeaser exit temperature of

'F with the measured ice at the cod ofTest C (roedium LOCA).

TEST F

LONER COMPARTMENT MAAPi OATA HIIIIIII/IlIIIIIIIIIlIlIIIIlIIIIllllllllslllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlIlllIIIIIlIIIIIIIIII[/J u

T IMl-Comparison of Test F pressure versus time for an ice condenser outlet temperature of

BAAP4 Q

MEASURED ICE BASS AT THE END OF THE EXPEAIHEHT CD I

s45 I

CO cD CA CD TIME (SECONDS)

Comparison of the calculated remauung ice mass and the ead point mamuemait for Test F.

LONE fl COMP AHTMENT DATA MAAP<

LLj Cj CD C1J LCC OL CL I

LLC CD CD LAL lK LLI)

I IJ C3 LLJ tK I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I TIME:

Comparison of the measured lcnver compartment pnssure for the long term decay heat removal experiment (Test K) and the MAAP4 containment model using an ice condenser exit temperature of

MAAP<

I VI I

CD VI CX TIME (SE G 0 NO 8)

Calculated ice mass melting history for Test K using an ice condenser exit temperature of CD VI VI iI

CONCI USIONS WITHRESPECT TO TAHE BENC G ACTIVITIES The comparison of the MAAP4 containment model and LOTIC-3 for the 2" and 6" cold leg LOCA show good agreement between the ice melt rate and the transient containment pressure history with LOTIC-3 having a somewhat higher ice melt rate and higher containment pressure consistent with the design basis philosophy of the code.

The integral break flow and energy flow considered by M4VdP4 are in agreement with the flow rates from NOTRUMP. Also, the spectrum of LOCAs considered in the M44V'4 analysis span those which are to be investigated by the BSA codes.

Comparisons of the MAAP4 best-estimate model with the full scale experiments show a consistent response of the containment with the measured behavior.

This is true for both the containment pressure response and the ice melt conditions.

The composite of these benchmarking activities shows a consistent representation of the containment response for the best-estimate scoping model (MAdd'4) and the design basis calculations (NOTRDHP and LOTIC-3).

Furthermore, the best-estimate model is consistent with the results of the large scale experiments used to characterize the response of an ice condenser containment to variety of LOCA conditions.

SENSITIVITYS'I UBIES FGR THjKCGGK NUCLEARPLAlVX SUMP FILLEVALUATIONS Yhe most important sensitivity calculation is to consider a variety of break sizes. In this regard, the MAAP4sensitivity studies wil. investigate LGCAs from one-half inch to six inches in diameter.

This encompasses the entire small LOCA range.

The particular issue of interest for this evaluation is the sump depth for the containment spray pumps.

Consequently, the duration of the containment sprays is an important variable in this evaluation.

Therefore, the variations in plant parameters, within tech spec limits, are assessed to determine the influence that these could have on the use of containment sprays.

The Mluence of conditions whereby the sprays would be turned on at 2.9 psig and turned offat 1.5 psig or run continuously once they are activated willbe evaluated.

Other plant parameters inAuence the mass of air in containment, the condensing capability of the sprays, etc.

These willalso be investigated in these sensitivity calculations.

are

~~.

-;.K @I'll.-&%

"-. 'M V4lh C2W. PTWPM4>

-'7.: K4 Z.ICB I

r I

e I

I l I I P' Y/~

Y~

l/J' l8/...~

/I

/I I

I-: I f/i

~

J~

/I

~

~

J/

~ //I/'8l

//J//AJF/PPFZ/PIJJJÃJIIISPI//PP/jlljl/SSS Yj/JJJJÃIP)X/jjlj/7/P/ji/A/'JJJ.'

I

~

I

Lower Carta.iIiment Simplified Schematic (333,000 gallons) 612'-0" (337,000 gal excl. cavity) 610'-0" Inactive Sump (Pipe Annulus)

(276,000 gallons)

Active Sunup 602'-10" (110,000 gallons)

(126,000 gal Reactor Cavity 598'-9" Important levels and volumes for the active and inactive sumps.

Volume Descri tion Available RWST Water Inventory Available Ice Mass TOTAL Accumulators TOTALWI'MACCUMULATORS Volume/Mass 295,000 gal 2.43 x 10'bm (291,472 gal) 586,472 gal 4 x 921 ft'27,500gal) 613,972 al Volume Descri tion Reactor Coolant System (including the pressurizer)

Volume of the Pressurizer Approximate Inventory Needed to Keep RCS Full During Cool Down Inactive Sump Reference Water Volume Net Volume for Water Accumulation in the Inactive Sump Active Sump Reference Water Volume to the 602'10" Level Net Volume for Water Accumulation in the Active Sump to the 602'10" Mvel Water Volume for the Reactor Cavity TOTAL Volume/Mass 11, 159 ft'83,469gal) 1800 ft'13,464gal)

- 20,000 gal 335,960 gal 319,000 gal 117,320 gal 116,000 gal 117,795 gal 572 795 31

Table 4-3 Location Water required to fillthe containment spray and RHR piping but not the RHR spray lines.

Water in-flightduring spray operation o upper compartment (h = 80.2 ft),

~ lower compartment (h = 50,9 ft),

~ annular compartment (h = 36,75 ft).

Sprays impinging upon walls and draining as a film upper compartment (42,000 ft ),

lower compartment (15,000 ft'),

annular compartment (10,000 ft').

TOTAL Ma nitude of Water Holdu 7,789 gal 267 gal 93 gal 13 gal 206 gal 74 gal 49 gal 8 491 al

OCCOOK 10 HOOE 6

COLO LEG LOCA SLO6 IO 10 TIME HOURS 30 60 0

IO 20 TIME HOURS 30 40 Io 20 TIME HOUR S 30 o

Io 10 TIME HOURS 30 40 Summary of the containment system response for a six inch diameter cold leg LOCA.

DCCOOK Io RODE 3

COLD LEG LOCA SLOi tt I

CCC re CO CO ill vl D

vs I

CC IO 20 30 io 50 40 70

$ 0 90 100 TIME HOURS IO 20 30 io 50 40 70 jo 90 IOO TIME HOURS D

ill CL CO Vl CCC

~

IO D'

IO 20 30 i0 T IME 50 90 70 00 90 IOR HOURS 0

10 20 30 io 50 40 70

$ 0 90 101 TIME HOURS Summary of the containment system response for a three inch diameter cold leg LOCA.

DCCOOK 10 HOOE 2

COLO LEG LOCA BASE CASE SLOI 44 CO

~4 UJ 44 O

~41o 0 vs I

LL 20 40 60 10 I 00 TIME HOURS

~ f W

4 I

~. L...L........ -...I4..

I44 I 20 I 40 f60

~ 0 20 40 60

$ 0 I00 I20

!40 I60 TIME HOURS

~

~

f I44 4

4 I

f4 4444 f 4 I ll I ~

• O UJ C

I 3c IL 4O 44 UJ I

20 40 60 00 I00 TIME HOURS L.

L20 I 40 I6

.L....I.. L., l L....I

....I..

~.

0 20 40 60

$ 0 I00 I20 I40 I60 TIME HOURS Summary of the containment system response for a two inch diameter cold leg LOCA.

0

DCCOOK IO RODE 2

COLD LEG LOCA.

COOLDOWH AT 30 FIHR SPRAYS RUN UONYINUOUSLY ISLOI SIII

~S

S S

I I

Y I"'pa

~

I '"S "I

~YS SSS UU S

O EP

~ 0 IO 10 30 l0

$ 0

~ 0 10

!0

%0 l00 TIME (HOURS)

IO 20 30 IO

$ 0 40 10 20

$ 0 IOO TIME (HOURS)

SSS SSS

~SS OU ISS S

O SPS SO SLS SS SS.

I ~

1 ~

30 i~

3 ~

~ 0 1 ~

0 ~

0 ~

l0 ~

T IME (HOURS)

I 0 2 ~

$ 4

< ~

$ 0 40 10 IO

'I~

I 0 ~

TIME (HOURS)

Summary of the containment system response for a two inch diameter cold leg LOCA with containment sprays operating continuously once they are activated.

DCCOOK IO NODE I

COLD LEO LOCA SPRAYS STAY ON AFTER THEY START I

SLO3 53 o

vs t%

W OC h

~A 40 WK 04 O

I X

O EJ DC D

A 0

D 0 l0 20 20 40 TIME HOURS 40 0

IO 20 30 40 TIME HOURS

$ 0 40 I

O X

Q1

~Il o

K Ol I

sl I

EJ 10 I

I 20

)0 44 TINR HOURS W

D a.

O I

I 2 ~

~ 0 0

IO 20 20 40

$ 0

~ 4 TIMe HOURS Summary of the containment system response for a one inch diameter cold leg LOCA with the accumulators assumed to be blocked and the sprays operating continuously once they have been started.

DCCOOK

)0 NODE 0.)

COLD LEO LOCA SPRAYS STAT ON APTER THET START 5)02

$ 2 Vl IIII

~J

~I C

D lal ee

~tl Ul

~C 0

I X0 LJ a

D 0A, DO 10 20

)0 fo

)0 TIME HOURS fo

~ 0 10 20

)0 Co T)ME HOURS

)0 fO a

a aa D

Ql W

D

~C Ql I

'Vl a

EJ

'0 10 20

)0 CO T)ME HOURS a

C4 D

0 0

10 20

)0

~ 0 TINE HOURS

)0 fo Summary of the containment system response for a one-half inch diameter cold leg LOCA assuming the accumulators are blocked and with the containment sprays operating continuously once they have been started.

Sensitivity Run No.

Sl S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Parameter Chan ed Core power = 3315 MWt.

Core power = 3588 MWt.

Core power = 3425 MWt.

RWST temperature = 70'F.

Containment gas temperature

= 70'F.

Thermal conductivity of containment structural heat sinks decreased by a value of 1.4.

Thermal conductivity of containment structural heat sinks increased by a factor of 1.4.

Nominal Value 3250 3250 3250 105 UC = 100'F, LC = 120'F, DEC = 120'F 1.0 1.0 Comments Licensing value for Unit 1.

Licensing value for Unit 2.

Nominal operating power, for Unit 2.

Minimum tech spec value.

Lowest value to maximize the mass of air in containment.

Minimize the influence of containment structural heat sinks.

Maximizes the influence of containment structural heat sinks.

S8 S9 Heat exchanger cooling rates set at minimum lake water temperature = 45'F.

200 gpm of upper compartment spray flow drains to the inactive sum 87'F 45 gpm Minimizes ice melt.

Upper bound of the flow that could be diverted to the inactive sum

OCCOOX Io NOOE 2

COI.O LEO INITIAL CORE POWER INITIAL CORE POWER a

INITIAL CORE POWER

~

INITIAL CORE POWER

~

LOCA. SENSITIVITIES Sl.

3230 MWlh (SLO$ )

33I3 MWlh (SLO$ SI) 3300 I4WIh (SLO$

63) 342$

MWlh (SLO$

60) r w'"

S).

S I III D

~ ~

~0 IO

~II IL IL I

O EP

. ~

10

~ ~

0 ~

I~

l0 0 Il~

I ~ 0 I ~ 0 TIME (HOURS)

. 0 20

<0 40 TIME

• I""

I IO 100 I 10 I ~ 0 14 ~

(HOURS)

D

~0

~O D

l 0

10

<0 0 ~

l0 I ~ 0 I10 I ~ 0 I00 TIME (HOURS)

~

2 ~

~ 0

~ 0 TIME I

I I

I~

IOO I10 I ~ 0 I ~ 0 (HOURS)

Summary of the containment response for sensitivity cases S1, S2 and S3.

OCCOOK IO NODE 2

COLO LEO LOCA: SENSITIVITY S ~

ANSI IEIIPEIIAIUIIE Ill F (SIUII RWST TELIPEAATUAE

~

10 F

(SLOS

$ 0)

~sl

~O

~+

~II

~U CC:

EPE IO III CC:

IL I

O IL IEI CL EL

~ 0 20

~ 0

~ 0 I~

100 TIIIE IHOUAS)

Il~

I CO II0 0

20 CO

~ 0 IO IOO l20 TlllE IHOUAS)

I ~ 0 I ~ 0

~IS Ill Sll I

~Sl CL I

~

O

~0

~O X

I C2 0

l0

~ 0 0 ~

00 100 TIME IHOURS)

ESSIL CL ll~

I ~ 0 I ~ 0 I

I I

~

20 IO

~ 0 20 IOO I2 ~

TIME IHOURS)

I ~ 0 IO ~

Summary of the containment response for sensitivity case S4.

DCCOOK

)0 NODE 1'OLO LEG LOCA.

SENSITIVIT Y 51 INITIAL GAS TEMP

)10 F

(LC),

100 F

(UC)

(SLOS)

INIIIAL OAS TEMP

~

10 F

(SI.OSS1)

UJ Q

CC

~ll

~O IL'L I

CL OO o 0 10

~ 0

~ 0 I~

100 11 ~

TIME (HOURS) 140 I ~ 0 I

I I

. I I

. 0 10 lO

~ 0 IO 100 110 110 I ~ 0 TIME (HOURS)

~II

~ll

~ll A

~ll O

46

~ll r

III I

'0 1 ~

IO

~ 0 I~

100 11 ~

TIME (HOURS) 114 I ~ 0 0

1 ~

IO

~ 0 10 100 110 I ~ 0 'l~

IIME (HOURS)

Summary of the containment response for sensitivity case SS.

I

~

~

I

~

I

~

I '

I '

OCCOOK 10 NODE 2'OLO LEG LOCA. SENSITIVITY Sll HX COOLING WATER AT l00 F

ISLOS)

HX COOLING WATER AT

~ S F

{SLOS Sll)

I I'"

I O

EP 10 I ~

~ 4 IO IOO Il~

I ~ 0 TIME (HOURS)

I ~ 0

~ 0 10 40 00 T IIIE IO IOO ISO I ~ 0 IOO IHOURS) gA & OWA ill

~ll 10

~ 0

~ 0 40 IOO II~

I'

'TIQE IHOURS)

I ~ 0 0

10 IO

~ 0 IIIIE 10 IOO I 10 I ~ 0 IO ~

IHOURS I Summary of the containment response for sensitivity case S8.

OCCOOK IO NOOE O'OLO LEO LOCA.

SENSI'TIVITY S)2 UPPER IU ANNULUS LEAKAGE A'I

~ I GPII ISLUII

~

UPPER TO ANNULU6 LEAKAOE AT 200 OPll (SLOS SI2) o I'

IG O

SL O

CP EC

~SS SE.

O o 0 20 IO

~ 0

~ 0 IOO I2 ~

TIIIE

{HOURS)

I < ~

II0

~ 0 20 I 0

~ 0 IO 100 TINE IHOURS)

Il0 I ~ 0 II~

SAS SAE EL'

~

O W

+V VV V VPUVVV I

SA SAS

~O XX

/rr/rrII I

I 20 IO I~

I~

IOO 12 ~

TIIIE lHOURS)

I ~ 0 I ~ 0 I,

I 20 IO

~ 0 IO 100 2IIIE IHOURS)

I 20 II0 I ~ 0 Summary of the containment response for sensitivity case S9.

0 Tjhe greatest conservatism in the analysis js that thc lce mass cx'edhted ln the calculation ls 2o43 x 10 ibm+ RealhsthcaHy~ the containment ice mass is approximately 2.7 x 10 ibm, which when melted, would add appxoximately 36,000 gallons of watex hnventory to the containhLent. At the equhlhbrhum spill QVCF crhterha~ tjhhs wouM incx'ease the active sump watex'evel by 16 inches.

1" and 2" diameter break analyses do not credit unblocking of the accumulators by the operators.

This wouM add 27,500 gals. And wouM increase the active sump level by 12

inches, These analyses do not credit othex operatox acthons such as FCNhtng of the RWSY.

AIMhthonal hnventory into the contalnmcnt wouM further hncrease the active sump water level.

R

i~

i i

~.

~ i r

~

~i

~

~

, ~

~

r I

~

i

~, ~

1 4

~

~.

~

g

~

I

~

~

~

ia

~

~

( ~

~

I ',

I I

~,

~ I r

~

0

'I 0

d

~ J