ML18096A912
| ML18096A912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1992 |
| From: | Labruna S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NLR-N92116, NUDOCS 9208250019 | |
| Download: ML18096A912 (29) | |
Text
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1200 Vice President - Nuclear Operations NLR-N92116 AUG 19 1992 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
FOLLOWUP TO NRC AND PSE&G MEETING ON MAY 11, 1992 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR TESTING AND LOAD CALCULATION I
SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 PSE&G and NRC staff met on May 11, 1992, to discuss the revised Salem Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) load calculation and surveillance test requirements, relative to PSE&G's amendment request of March 6, 1991 (LCR 87-07, Revision 1) . The meeting was summarized via NRC letter dated June 3, 1992, and included commitments by PSE&G to provide additional information.
Attachment 1 to this letter contains the additional information, concerning load factors used for the 230 V motors, EDG frequency dip during initial startup testing, a summary of load increases and decreases from the original to the present load calculation, review of startup and surveillance test data, derating considerations for combustion air and jacket water temperature, and an editorial correction to the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation performed for the revised load calculation.
Sincerely, 240019 92082-50019 9208 i 9 PDR ADOCK 05000272 p PDR
AUG 19 1992 Document Control Desk 2 NLR-N92116 Attachments (2)
C Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. Martin, Administrator Region I Mr. T. Martin, Administrator USNRC Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
NLR-N92116 ATTACHMENT 1 The following includes a summary of each commitment made by PSE&G at the May 11, 1992 meeting, followed by our response to the commitment.
230 VOLT MOTOR LOAD FACTORS Commitment An 80% load factor (ie, % of nameplate rating) was used in the load calculation for 230 V motors, which account for approximately 5% of the total EDG load. A weighted average of 83% was calculated based on a sample of 10 out of a total population of 90 motors for both Salem units. PSE&G agreed to determine the impact of an assumed average load factor of 95% of nameplate rating, on total EDG loading.
Response
A 95% assumed load factor for the 230 V motors would result in the load calculation values exceeding the EDG manufacturers rating.
Additional voltage and current measurements were taken for 230 V motors in order to justify using a realistic load factor. The motors were grouped according to similarity of function and nameplate horsepower rating. There are 40 groups representing a total of 90 motors. There are three groups of single phase motors, with a maximum rating of 16 amps. Based on the low number of motors and low power demand, no measurements were taken for single phase motors.
A minimum of one motor from each three phase motor group was run, with volt and amp measurements recorded. Where more than one motor from a group was tested, an average load factor was calculated for the group. The overall average is therefore weighted by group, instead. of individual motor tested. Main steam isolation valve hydraulic pumps, reactor nozzle support fans and reactor shield vent fans were not included in the average because they are not run during the LOCA plus LOOP.scenarios. The average load factor is calculated to be 79%, which supports the 80% value used in the load study.
EDG FREQUENCY RESPONSE DURING STARTUP TESTING Commitment The NRC staff asked whether ALCO's (the EDG vendor) performance testing adequately demonstrated the KVA rating of the diesel generator. In response to this question, PSE&G described the resistive and reactive load testing performed by ALCO, as well as the emergency load sequence
NLR-N92116 e Attachment 1 testing performed by PSE&G during initial startup. During startup testing, the frequency fell below the value recommended by Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.9, but recovered within the time period specified by the RG. PSE&G agreed to provide information about the frequency dip which occurred during startup testing.
Response
Revision 2 of RG 1.9 states that frequency should remain above 95% of nominal, and voltage should remain above 75% of nominal, during the ESF and emergency shutdown loading sequences. Frequency should recover to within 2% of nominal, and voltage to within 10% of nominal, within 60% of the load sequence time interval.
The visicorder traces for Unit 1 and 2 startup load sequence tests have not been retrieved to date. However, the startup test procedure records include an evaluation of the visicorder trace results.
During Unit 1 startup testing, the frequency dropped to approximately 92% (between 55 and 55.5 Hz) on all three diesels following the service water pump start in the accident plus blackout load sequence. Voltage remained above 75%. Frequency recovered to 100% (60 Hz) within 2 seconds, which is 22.2% of the 9 second load sequence time interval between a successful primary service water pump start and the next load in the accident plus loss of power load sequence.*
Based on the rapid frequency recovery and successful acceleration of the sequenced loads, the test results were judged satisfactory and consistent with the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.9.
Unit 2 startup test data indicate no voltage or frequency drops below the Regulatory Guide 1.9 criteria.
During the recent Unit 1 tenth refueling outage, special load sequence testing was performed to measure the EDG's voltage and frequency response to a service water pump start (largest single load). The normal load sequence testing, with ECCS pumps in recirculation, was performed
- Alternate SW pump start, which occurs only if the primary SW pump fails, is not considered for the purposes of establishing the RG 1.9 recovery time interval. If a single failure of a primary SW pump would result in an EDG failure, it would be equivalent to the design basis accident plus single diesel failure scenario, which is analyzed as part of Salem's licensing basis.
NLR-N92116 Attachment 1 satisfactorily. Then, using plant motor loads, each EDG was manually baseloaded to -o, + 100 kw of the worst case calculated load condition prior to the service water pump start. The voltage and frequency dips resulting from the service water pump starts for each test are shown in Table 1.
lA EDG's frequency dipped to 93.67% of nominal (56.2 Hz).
However, the frequency recovered to within 2% (+/- 1.2 Hz) of nominal within 2.75 seconds (31% of the 9 second sequence time interval). The voltage for the lA EDG remained well within the 75% limit; it did not drop below 90%. lB and lC EDG's remained within the RG 1.9 limits of 95% and 75% for frequency and voltage.
Based on the rapid frequency recovery of lA EDG, and the overall performance of all three EDG's, the test demonstrates the EDG's ability to accelerate the sequenced loads, consistent with the intent of RG 1.9.
LOAD INCREASES AND DECREASES Commitment The NRC Staff asked what load changes, from the time of the original EDG load study, have resulted in the revised loading in excess of the UFSAR maximum value of 2750 kw for 30 minutes, and no loading above 2600 KW beyond 30 minutes.
PSE&G described the major load increases and decreases in general terms, and agreed to provide a written summary of the load changes.
Response
A comparison of original FSAR loads (given in UFSAR Table 8.3-2, Revision 6), the 1988 Load Calculation (S-C-4KV-EDC-0650) and the present Load Calculation (ES-9.002) is as follows:
FSAR vs. 1988 Calculation (S-C-4KV-EDC-0650)
S-C-4KV-EDC-0650 used system design flows instead of the single pump runout conditions to determine the BHP requirements of the:
a) Centrifugal charging pumps (from 625 to 450 hp) b) Safety injection pumps (from 390 to 360 hp) c) RHR pumps '(from 425 to 350 hp) d) Service water pumps (from 1000 to 955 hp) e) Auxiliary feedwater pumps (from 600 to 460 hp)
The 1988 calculation also introduced motor operated valve
{MOV) loads, which were previously omitted because they are
NLR-N92116 Attachment 1 short duration, intermittent loads. MOV loads were added at 150% of rated horsepower and 0.5 power factor.
1988 Calculation vs. Present Calculation CES-9.002)
ES-9.002 involved a complete reconstitution of the EDG sizing calculation. Therefore, no effort was initially made to compare individual load differences between the two calculations. Changes to calculated worst case condition pump horsepower demands resulted in the following increases:
a) Centrifugal charging pumps (450 to 650 hp) b) Containment spray pumps (360 to 400 hp) c) Service water pumps (955 to 1030 hp) d) Auxiliary feedwater pump 22 (460 to 500 hp) e) Auxiliary feedwater pumps 11, 12, and 21 (460 to 600 hp)
The containment fan cooler motor load was decreased from 103 to 94 hp.
In order to provide a sample comparison of load changes, all Salem Unit 1 4 KV and 480 V loads, and."A" channel 230 V loads were compared. This sample represents 147 individual loads, of a total of 318 Unit 1 loads.
76 of the 147 loads were different, with 29 increases and 47 decreases in calculation ES-9.002.
30 of the 47 decreases resulted from changing the MOV loads from 150% load factor @ 0.5 power factor, to 100% load factor @ 0.4 power factor. The remaining 17 decreases are addressed by the Electrical Load Justification sheets attached to the calculation, or are based on the current revision of the single line drawings referenced in the calculation database.
The 29 load increases are based upon more conservative definition of ESF pump horsepower demands resulting from design basis reconstitution efforts, or are based on the current revision of the plant single line drawings.
CONTROL OF AUTO CONNECTED LOAD GROWTH Commitment The surveillance requirement to verify the auto connected loads remain within acceptable limits is performed with the ECCS and containment spray pumps in recirculation. The revised load calculation, using pump runout horsepower values, results in auto connected loads less than the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating of 2860 kw. PSE&G agreed to review startup test data
NLR-N92116 Attachment 1 and compare surveillance test data to ensure load growth has not exceeded 2860 kw.
Response
Startup testing, which used normal flow paths for ECCS pump load sequencing, resulted in total auto-connected loads less than 2750 kw. The ESF load sequence surveillance testing uses minimum flow recirculation lines for ECCS pumps. With the pumps operating at the low end of their performance curve (e.g., low flow and low efficiency), and flow and pressure measurement uncertainties, the test data available does not conclusively determine the total maximum auto-connected EDG loads.
Presently, the primary means of ensuring total load growth will not exceed the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating of 2860 kw is the design control process.
COMBUSTION AIR AND JACKET WATER TEMPERATURES Commitment Combustion air temperature was considered as a potentially derating factor, in response to the concerns expressed in NRC Information Notice 91-13. Combustion air for the Salem EDG's is drawn from outside ambient air, is turbocharged, and cooled by the jacket water heat exchanger. Based on the original river water design maximum temperature of 85 F, the jacket water temperature and lube oil temperature would remain below their alarm settings of 175 and 185 F. At the time of the meeting, PSE&G was in the process of evaluating a river water temperature of 90 F. PSE&G agreed to provide a copy of the evaluation when completed.
Response provides excerpts of the 90 F service water temperature evaluation relative to peak lube oil and jacket water temperatures. Lube oil temperature was calculated to be 184.1 F, vs. an alarm setpoint of 190 F and trip setting of 205 F. Jacket water temperature was calculated to be 174 F, vs. an alarm setpoint of 175 F and trip setting of 195 F.
Because jacket water temperature is a key parameter for ensuring acceptable combustion air temperatures, the basis for the alarm and trip settings provided by the EDG vendor was reviewed by PSE&G. The alarm and trip settings for jacket water temperature were supplied by the EDG vendor and are considered proprietary. PSE&G presently has insufficient design basis data to calculate jacket water system performance relative to combustion air temperature.
NLR-N92116 Attachment 1 We have requested additional information from the EDG and aftercooler manufacturers.
Jacket water and combustion air temperature data were collected during endurance run testing, with the EDG loaded to 2860 kw for two hours, then 2600 kw for 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br />. The test data are as follows:
River water into cooler, 72 F, out 92 F Combustion air to filter (ambient), 84.6 F Combustion air to aftercooler: inlet 285 F, outlet 221 F (280 F is unconfirmed design max. outlet, per vendor)
Jacket water to aftercooler, 137 F, out 150 F (175 F alarm)
Lube oil to engine, 158 F, out 180 F (190 alarm)
Air manifold pressure, 20.5 psi Exhaust temp max. 956 F (960 F design, 1200 F maximum)
Although i t is inconclusive to extrapolate the test data to determine EDG performance at extreme ambient air and river water temperatures, there appears to be sufficient margin to maintaining diesel operation within normal operating parameters at higher temperatures.
10 CFR 50.59 LOAD
SUMMARY
CORRECTION Commitment PSE&G agreed to revise the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation for the EDG load calculation, to correctly list the worst case load values for EDG's lA, lB and lC.
Response
The 50.59 evaluation has been corrected as agreed to at the May 11, 1992 meeting.
Table 1 MINIMUM EDG Base Load Volt. Freq.
(kw) lA 1206 3833 v 56.2 Hz
- 3780 57.8 lB 1237 3708 59.0 3803 57.4 lC 1336 3755 58.6 3650 59.6 NOTES:
Based on Regulatory Guide 1.9, Rev. 2 criteria, Minimum Voltage (75%) = 3120 V Recovery band: 3744 V ~ 4160 ~ 4575 V Minimum Frequency (95%) = 57 Hz Recovery band: 58.8 Hz < 60 < 61.2 Hz
- Frequency recovered to 58.8 Hz within at 2.75 seconds from pump start. For EDG lA, there is a nine second interval between the SW pump start and the next load in the sequence.
RG 1.9 recovery time = 60% x 9 seconds = 5.4 sec.
NLR-N92116 ATTACHMENT 2
TITLE IDNO. SHEET S-C-SW-MDC-1068 OPS~G SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 9
OF CALCULATION 65 CONTINUATION SHEET hour with/exteng'ed stearr dump uplto the(16th qour r afte shuu'down. /Based on the reactor coolant pump (RC~ bea~ing c9oling*wdter (i.el., fro2/ccw) /
te~per~tI.re limd. t of 1216° F for ~o more than 4/ hours,!,
S¥em's RCP is/required. to be turned off based on /
b1earin temper1ature i'fj. accordai:i'.ce with the pf:-esent.'
Operat'1.ng Pro6edures/1(Referencks 15 a'nd 16) l /
I ..
I Howe':'er, bas ed I I i
/
on e~periences with 16ther ~tilities, /
II 1
Wesi/inghouse has concluded c/see Ref. 11) that / /
additional;~lant cdoldown and equipment evaluations may jue/tify the single/train cdoldown/for se~vice/watef:- at 9 01° F wi thoht the i-estr ictibn for /tr ippirig the RCP~.
u ' " ! ' I I '
3.2 Diesel Generator Jacket Water and Lube Oil Coolers
- The diesel generator jacket water system is designed to remove heat from the engine and the turbocharger and transfer the heat load to the service water via the diesel generator jacket water heat exchanger, as shown in the Emergency Diesel Generator System CBD (Ref. 1). The jacket water heat exchanger cools the flow of water after it has picked up heat from the engine and the turbocharger. The diesel generator engine lube oil coolers serve to cool the lube oil by transferring heat to the Service Water System.
The diesel generator jacket water and lube oil coolers utilize service water flowing through the tube side of series tube and shell heat exchangers to remove the heat produced by the diesel generators during operation. As shown in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this calculation, the effect of a 5°F temperature increase of the cooling water translates to an approximately 4°F temperature rise on the j~cket water and lube oil temperatures for the original design heat generation rate per Reference 1, which corresponds to the diesel generator maximum long term expected electrical load.
The maximum lube oil temperature corresponding to a 90°F service water supply temperature is 184.1°F as calculated in Section 4.2. This value is less than the current high alarm setpoint of 190°F and the trip setpoint of 205°F. Thus, there is no impact on the safe operation of the equipment.
DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2
(}5-03Z7 2.SM 11~90
TITLE IDNO.
1--------------.. *-'
S-C-SW-MDC-1068 SHEET
.0-PS~G SERVICE ~ATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 10 OF CALCULATION DATE 65 CONTINUATION SHEET PEER REVIEW DATE Similarly, the maximum jacket water temperature of 174°F (see Section 4.1) corresponding to the service water temperature of 90°F is lower than the current htgh jacket water temperature alarm setpoint of 175°F and the trip setpoint of 195°F. Thus, the increase in service water temperature from 85°F to 90°F will not result in any adverse impact on the safe operation of the diesel engine and the turbocharger systems.
3.3 containment Fan Coil Units A. Post-accident Operation As one of the two primary means for post-accident containment energy removal, the containment fan coil units (CFCUs) rely on service water to cool the containment steam-air mixture and condense out moisture over the finned surface of the coils. An increase in the service water supply temperature can impact the containment heat removal capability of the CFCUs, which in turn can impact the containment integrity analysis.
An analysis was performed by Westinghouse to evaluate the impact of the 90°F service water on the containment integrity analysis and the results are described in References 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19.
The analysis was performed both with and without the Boron Injection Tank (BIT), utilizing the CFCU heat removal performance shown in Reference 20. The most limiting case of the previous main steam line break (MSLB) analysis with the BIT (0.86 ft 2 split break),
done in 1978 and the most limiting case of the BIT removal analysis (0.944 ft 2 split break) were reanalyzed using the new CFCU heat removal data given in Reference 20. Several tasks were performed as a sensitivity study 'to daterrr.ine the most limiting pressure transient, by varying the number of operable fan coolers assumption and the service water inlet temperature and flow to the CFCUs. The most limiting case of the loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) containment analysis performed in 1985 was reanalyzed for environmental qualification (EQ) *
- DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2 95-032.7 ZSM 11~90
IDNO.
- SHEET SW-MDC-1068 OPS~G ERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 26 OF 65 CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET 4.1 Diesel Generator Jacket Water Cooler Tsw I 014t (Ref. PSBP 304632)
P&ID 205242
.7rom Section 5.2.3B.3 of Ref. 1:
Qjw = 310 gpm Tinjw = 170 op 1 Tjw,out = 135 °P QSW = 700 gpm q = 5,250,000 BTU/hr f = 0.0015 (tube side)
Tube size: 5/8", 18 gauge, Titanium * . . .... . .
. (Ref. 3) d0 = 5/8 11 , t = 0.049" (18 gauge) di = sI a - C2 x o
- o4 9) = o
- s 21 in L (U tube) = 6.5 ft** . . . . . . .. . .. . . . (Ref. 3)
- = 272 straight tubes formed into 136 u tubes . (Ref. 3)
AT"T"A ,....., , . *r-* 1"'T" -
DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0)
TITLE IDNO.
*-_,,,_,;;. SHEET
-C-SW-MOC-1068 SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 27 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET DATE PEER REVIEW DATE 65 5/8 A0 = 1T D0 L x n = 3 .142 x x 6.5 x 272 = 289.3 ft2 12
- Straight length from end of tube to the U tube bend tangent Calculate U0 and h 0 for 85°F Service Water Temperature Tsw,in = 85°F, Tsw,out = 100°F Tjw,in = 170°F, Tjw,out = 135°F GTTD = 170 - 100 = 70°F
- LTTD LMTD
=
=
135 - 85 =
GTTD - LTTD ln (GTTD/LTTD) 50°F
=-----
70-50 ln (70/ 50)
(LMTD) cor = F x LMTD . . .. .. . . . (Eq 11.18 of Ref. 4) 100-85 p = ............ (Figure 11.10 of Ref. 4) 170-85
= 0.176 170-135 R = = 2.33 . . . .. ... . {Figure 11.10 of Ref. 4) 100-85 F = 0. 9 65 . * * . . . * * * . . . . . . (Figure 11.10 of Ref. 4)
DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0)
ATTACHMENT 2
'JS-OJZ.7 Z.SM 11~90
- o. PS~G TITLE IDNO. SHEET S-C-SW-MDC-1068 SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 28 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET DATE PEER REVIEW DATE 65
( LMTD) cor = 0
- 9 65 x 5 9 *44 = 57 *4 q = UaA0 (LMTD)cor q 5,250,000 BTU uo = = = 316 Ao (LMTD) cor 289.3 x 57.4 hr-ft 2 -°F Dvp Re =
µ.
- Tavg =
100 2
+ 85
92.5°F Inlet tube flow area A
272 1f
= x x (0.527/12) 2 = 0.206 ft2 2 4 1 1 1 v = 700 gal/min x x x 7.481 gal/ft 3 0.206 ft 2 60 sec/min
= 7.57 ft/sec lbm lbm At Tavg = 92.2°F, µ = 1.82 & p = 62.0
- DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) hr-ft ft 3 ATTACHMENT 2
'JS-OJZ7 ;?'SM 11-90
TITlE IDNO.
1---------~,.....--
S-C-SW-MOC-1068 SHEET OPS~G SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 29 OF CALCULATION 65 CONTINUATION SHEET 0.527 ft lbm 1 sec Re= ft x 7.57 x 62.0 x x 3600 12 sec ft3 1.82 lbm hr hr-ft
= 40,770 Since Re > 7000 160 ( 1 + 0. 012Tavg) v 0*8 Equation 6c, page (di) 0.2. 4-100 (Ref. 5) 160 (1 + 0.012 x 92.2) (7.57) 0*8
=
( 0. 527) 0.2
= 1935 BTU/hr-ft2-°F From Eq. 11.5 of Ref. 4, 1
1 ro ro 1 k
ln (r0 /rJ + (-;,-} fi +
I
(-j 0.3125
= 1.186, f 0 = O, fi = 0.0015, hi= 1935, U0 = 316 0.2635 K(titaniumtubes) = 21.9 x 0.57782 . . . . . (Table A.1 of Ref. 4)
BTU
= 12.65
- DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2 95-0327 ZSM 11-90
.0.PS~G
. - TITLE SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE
!ONO.
REFERENCE S-C-SW-MDC-1068 F NO. DES-90-01443 SHEET 30 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET 65 Calculate h 0 1
1 0.3125 1.186
+ o + x ln (1.186) + (1.186 x 0.0015) +
h0 12 X 12.65 1935 1
or, 316 =
l/h0 + 0.0003512 + 0.001779 + 0.0006129 BTU or, h 0 = 2372
- Assume h 0 to remain constant when the service water temperature approaches 90°F. This assumption is valid because the water properties do not change significantly with temperature.
At 90°F Service Water Temperature Tsw,in = 90°F, Tsw,out = 105°F (assume) 90 + 105 Tavg =
2 From Equation 6C, page 4-100 of Ref. 5 hi (1 + 0.012 Tavg) 1 + 0.012 x 97.5
= = = 1. 0302 hi (1 + 0.012 Tavg) 1 + 0.012 x 92.2
- hi = 1. 0302 DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) x 1935 = 1993 ATTACHMENT 2
'J'5r0J2.7 ZSM 11-90
TITLE ID NO. SHEET S-C-SW-MDC-1068
.O*PS~G SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 31 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET DATE PEER REVIEW DATE 65
- At 97. 5 op I Psw = 62. 03 lbm/ft3 I 700 gal/min cp = 0. 9992 60 min BTU 0.9992 BTU Csw = x 62.03 x ----x
- 7. 481 gal/ft3
- ft 3 hr
= 3. 4 7975 x 10 5 BTU/hr- 0 R q = 3.47975 X 105 (Tsw,o - 90) = 5,250,000 or I Tsw,o = 105. 10 ° p I Check Tavg 90 + 105.10 Tavg = = 97.55°P, Okay 2
Assume Tjw,avg =.157.5°P (-5°P higher than before) for obtaining water properties DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2 9S-OJZ7 ZSM 11-90
.- *~
TITLE IDNO. ~----------------.----
S-C-SW-MOC-1068 SHEET OPS~G SERVICE WATER SYSTEM REFERENCE 32 DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET DATE PEER REVIEW DATE 65 p = 61. 013 ft 3 310 gpm lbm BTU 60 min cjw = x 61. 013 x 1. 0004 x
- 7. 481 gal/ft3 ft 3 lbm- 0 R hr BTU
= 1.51757 x 10 5 hr- 0 R
- Thus cmin = cjw = 1. 51757 x 10 5 BTU BTU 5
cmax = c~ = 3.47975 x 10 Urfto NTU = ************** (Eq 11.25 of Ref. 4) cmin 317.8 x 289.3
= = 0.606 1
- 51757 x 10 5
~
-1 e = 2 { 1 + c, + ( 1 + C,2 ) x (Ref 4., Eq
-NTU(1+C,2)li } 11.31a)
- DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) 1 - e ATTACHMENT 2 9S--0JZ7 ZSM 11-90
TITLE ID NO. SHEET S-C-SW-MDC-1068 O*PS~G SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 33 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET DATE PEER REVIEW DATE 65 cmin 1. 51757 x 105
= = 0.436 Cmax 3. 4 7975 x 105
= 2
{ 1 + 0.436 + 1.09096 x 1 + 0.5157 1 - 0.5157 r
=
=
2 0.412
{ 1 + 0.436 + 1.09096 x
- 1. 5157 0.4843 r
- q = Cmin (Tjw,in - Tsw,in) ******* (Eq 11.23 of Ref. 4) 5,250,000 or, Tjw,in - 90 =
0.412 x 1.51757 x 10 5
= 83.97 Tjw,in = 90 + 83.97 = 173.97°F, say 174°F Also, or, 5,250,000 = 1.51757 X. 10 5 (174 - Tjw,out) or, Tjw,out = 13 9. 4 ° F
- DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2
'l'j-032.7 :?~M I 1-90
-~
LE IDNO. ~----------------...---
- S\l-MDC-1068 SHEET OPS~G ERVICE \IATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 34 OF 65 CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET Check Tavg:
174 + 13g_4 Tavg = ------------------------------ = 156.7°F 2
This is close to Tavg of 157. 5 °F assumed earlier.
Thus, a change in the service water temperature from 85°F to go°F will increase the jacket water temperature from 170°F to 174°F, an increase of 4°F.
Since the new jacket water temperature of 174°F is less than the high engine temperature alarm setpoint of 175°F (TD6464, TD7247 and TD7295 - see Ref. 1), operation of the emergency diesel
.enerator at a go°F service water temperature is acceptable.
4.2 Diesel Generator Lube Oil Cooler Reference P&ID 205242, Sheet 3 PSBP 304632 From Section 5.2.lB.5 of Ref. 1 and Ref. 6
- Q10 = 300 gpm Tio.in= 18b°F, T10*00, = 160°F
~~~~JJ
. e TITLE IDNO. ----------------------------
-C-SW-HDC-1068 SHEET
.0-PS~G SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 35 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET DATE PEER REVIEW DATE 65 q = 1,260,000 BTU/hr f = 0.002 Qsw = 700 gpm, Tsw,in = 100 op 1 Tsw,out = 104. 2 °P Tube size= 5/8" O.D., BWG 18, Titanium*
n = 272 tubes L = 6.5 ft 5/8 x 6.5 x 272 = 289.3 ft 2 12
- Titanium tubes per DCPs lSC-1248 & 2SC-1249 Calculate U0 and h 0 for 85°F Service Water Temperature GTTD = 180 - 104.2 = 75.8°F LTTD = 160 - 100 = 60°F 75.8 - 60 15.8 LMTD = =---
ln(75.8/60) 0.234 104.2 - 100 p = . (Figure 11.10 of Ref. 4) 180 - 100
= 0.0525 180 - 160 R = . . * * . . . . . * (Figure 11.10 of Ref. 4) 104.2 - 100
- = 4.76 DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2 9;.03z.7* ZS'M 1 1~90
O.PS~G
. - TITLE SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE IDNO.
REFERENCE
-C-SW-MOC-1068 SHEET 36 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET 65 F = f (R,P) = 1.0 ...... (Figure 11.10 of Ref. 4)
(LMTD)cm = F x (LMTD) = 1 x 67.6* = 67.6°F 1,260,000 = ~ x 67.6 x 289.3 BTU uo = 64.43 hr-ft 2 -°F Since the service water flow and the inside diameter of the lube
- oil cooler tubes are the same as that of the jacket water cooler, Re> 7000 and v = 7.57 ft/sec (see Section 4.1 of this calculation).
100 + 104.2 Tavg,sw = = 102.1°F 2
[1 + (0.012 x 102.1)]
hi = 160 02 x (7. 57) 0.8 . . . (Equation 6C, Page
( 0. 52 7)
- 4-100 of Ref. 5) 160 x 2.225 x 5.05 BTU
= = 2043 0.88 hr-ft 2 -°F 1
uo =
1 0.3125 1.186
+ x ln 1.186 + ( 1.186 x 0.002) +
ho 12 x 12.65 2043
- DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2 95'-03Z7 ZSM 1 1-90
-.. *-~5~?
mLE IDNO. ~----------------...-----
C-SW-MOC-1068 SHEET SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 37 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET DATE PEER REVIEW DATE 65 1
1 + 0.0003512 + 0.002372 + 0.0005805 1
or, 0.01552 = + 0.0033 BTU
- Thus, or, at 85°F service water:
h0 = 81.84 hr-ft2 -°F U0 = 64. 43 BTU/hr-ft2-°F hi = 2043 BTU/hr-ft2 -°F h 0 = 81. 84 BTU/hr-ft2-°F.
At 90°F Service Water Temperature Tsw,in = Tjw,out = 105.1°F (see Section 4.1)
Assume same temperature rise across service water as before, i.e.
4.2°F.
105.1 + 109.3 Tavg,sw * = ------- = 107.2°F 2
DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2
"---~----------------------------------------------------------.....-...-.....-:--.--.....------~
970327 ZSM 11*90
TITLE IDNO. SHEET
-C-SW-MDC-1068 0 PS~G SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 38 OF CALCULATION 65 CONTINUATION SHEET PEER REVIEW DATE Let hi = inside convective heat transfer coefficient when service water temperature increases to 90°F.
hi 1 + ( 0 . 012 x 10 7 . 2 )
Therefore, = = 1.03
~ 1 + (0.012 x 102.1)
BTU or, ~ = 2043 x 1.03 = 2099 hr-ft 2-°F The change in h 0 will be negligible compared to a change in hi since the oil velocity is constant .
1
=
0.012219 + 0.0003512 + 0.002372 + 0.000565 BTU or, U0 = 64.48 hr-ft 2 -°F
- Assume the new lube oil temperature is five degrees higher .
DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2 9S-03Z7 .'!SM 11-90
. e TITLE IDNO. ~----------------......SHEET
-C-SW-MDC-1068
~---'~:~*.
.0.PS~G SERVICE WATER SYSTEM REFERENCE 39 DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET 65
, 180 + 160 Therefore, Tavg,Io = Tavg,lo + 5 OF =
"""-* -..,.. ..J 2 at 90°F at 85°F SW SW
, BTU At Tavg,lo = 175°F, cp,lo = 0.516 lbm-°F lbm *** (Table A. 5 of Pio = 53.0 Ref. 4) ft 3 300 gpm BTU 60 min
=
C10 x 53 x 0 *. 516 x
- 7. 481 gal/ft3 ft 3 lbm-°F hr BTU C10 = 6
- 5 8 x 104 Tavg,sw = 107. 2 °F 1 BTU From Table A.6 of Ref. 4, CP = 1.004 I P = 61. 894 lbm-°F ft 3 700 gal/min lbm BTU min Csw = mCP = x. 61.894 x 1.004 x 60 - - .
7.481 gal ft 3 lbm-°F hr ft 3
= 3.48876 x 10 5 BTU/hr- 0 R
- DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2 9S-0JZ7 ZSM 1 1-90
TITLE IDNO. SHEET
-C-SW-MDC-1068 OPS~G SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 40 OF CALCULATION DATE 65 CONTINUATION SHEET PEER REVIEW J.;.J..."'4.J..!:::li:IO~
DATE BTU Therefore, cmin = 6.58 x 104 (Lube Oil) hr- 0 R BTU cmax = 3.48876 x 10 5 (Service Water) hr- 0 R cmin 6.58 x 104 Cr = = = 0.188 cmax 3.48876 x 105 Therefore, Cr = 0 .188 UaAo NTU = . . . . . . . . . . . (Equation 11.25 of Ref. 4) cmin BTU 289.3 ft 2
= 64.48 x hr-ft2 -°F BTU 6.58 x 104 ---
hr-°F
= 0.285 Therefore, NTt: =- C.2~51
-NTUC1+c:)%
I 1 + e 2 . 1 +Cr+ (1 + C/)"' x - - - - - - -
=
-NTUC 1+C,2 ) %
1 - e DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2 1)~032.7 l5M 11-90
0.PS~G*
TITLE IDNO. SHEET C-SW-MDC-1068 SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 41 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET DATE PEER REVIEW DATE 65
{l + 0.748269) 0.188 + (1.01752) x
. {l - 0.748269)
= 0.2423 q = Cmin (T10,in - Tsw,in) * * * * * * *(Equation 11.23 of Ref. 4)
BTU BTU 1,260,000 = 0.2423 x 6.58 x 10 4 (T10,in - 105.*1) hr or, T~in = 184.1°F
- Check Tavg,lo assumed earlier q = C10 X or 1,260,000 (T10,in -
=
T10,out) 6.58 x 104 (184.1 - T10,00i) o~, 19 .149 = 184 .1 - T1o,out 184.1 + 165 Tavg,lo = = 174.6°F - 175°F, checks okay 2
Find Tsw,out q = 1, 260, 000 = 3. 48876 X 10 5 (Tsw,out - 105 .1) or, Tsw,out = 108. 7 °F 105.1 + 108.7 Tsw,avg = ~~~~~~~ = 107°F - 107.2°F assumed earlier -
2 checks okay
- DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2 95-0327 ZSM 11-90
~
~-:*
0 PS~G*
TITLE IDNO. SHEET
-C-SW-MOC-1068 SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS TEMPERATURE REFERENCE 42 OF
- CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET DATE PEER REVIEW D/,\TE 65 RESULTS The performance of the DG Jacket Water and lube oil coolers at 90°F service water temperature is acceptable as shown below:
JACKET WATER COOLER LOBE OIL COOLER PARAMETER ICE WATER JACKET WATER SERVICE WATER LUBE OIL Temperature 90 174 105.1 184.1 in, OF (Note 2} (Note l}
Temperature 105.1 139.4 108.7 165 out, op (Note 3)
Notes: 1. This temperature is lower than the high alarm setpoint of 190°F (TD6441, 7224, 7272 per Ref. 1) and trip setpoint of 205°F (TD6442, TD7225 and TD7273 per Ref. 1).
- 2. This temperature is lower than the high temperature alarm set point of 175° (TD6464, 7247, 7295 in Ref. 1) and trip setpoint of 195°F (TD6463~ 7246 and 7294 per Ref. 1)*.
- 3. This value is less than the high temperature alarm setpoint of 115°F (TD 6470, 7253, and 7301 per Ref. 1).
4.3 Safety Injection/Charging Pump Lube Oil cooler From Heat Exchanger Specification Data Sheet (Attachment 4}
and PSBP 300000:
Lube Oil Service Water Qlo = 15 . 9 gpm Qsw = 13.0 gpm
- DE-AP.ZZ-0002(0) ATTACHMENT 2
')5'-03Z7 l5M 11-90