ML20065M738

Mark-BW Reload LOCA Analysis for Catawba & McGuire Units

ML20065M738
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire
Issue date:	11/30/1990
From:	BABCOCK & WILCOX CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20065M730	List: ML20065M724 ML20065M738
References
BAW-10174, BAW-10174-R01, BAW-10174-R1, NUDOCS 9012110185
Download: ML20065M738 (41)

Text

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

4 i

's

l 3

i BAW-10174 7

- Topical Report

-l Revision.1 November 1990 r

4 t

s i

i.

- Mark-BW Reload - 14CA Analysis-for the..

1 Catawba and McGuire Units

]

t 1

- a f

a 7

t 9-9 h

J:

i 1v er i

4 i'

7 I

E

)

i

' Babcock & Wilcox. Fuel Company =

j P. O.

Box-10935-Lynchburg, Virginiac24506-0935' 4

b 4

- P 9 W-wg 4g-,,-W-w ws%---g-

--rywi w

gp t-y-y-y-y-c,v-i,-,.=w.,

yy,,--.we-a,-y,Ie te-r--w ny

%e--

...-mye--+..-t<W-'--tr"rremw--w-e--r-+-mr++-r+

-'e=n**-'e'ew-+-

e s w it-

i o

t l

\\'

l*

l 1

I I

Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company-P.

O.' Box 10935

+

l Lynchburg, Virginia 24506-0935 Topical Report BAW-10174

)

Revision 1-l November 1990 i-i Mark-BW Reload LOCA Analysis for the Catawba and McGuire Units 1

4 Kev Words: Larae Break. LOCA. Transient. Water Reactors

&BETRACT The B&W Fuel company will.be delivering reload fuel to the Duke Power' Catawba and McGuire Units beginning in 1991.

This-report presents a complete IOCA evaluation for operation'of the Catawba and McGuire nuclear units with Mark-BW reload fuel.,

Compliance with the criteria of 10'CFR 50.46 is demonstrated.

Operation of the units while in transition from Westinghouse-supplied OFA fuel to 'B&W-supplied Mark-BW fuel is also ' justified.

Other B&W i

topical reports describe the Mark-BW -' fuel ' assembly - design; the mechanical,- nuclear, and thermal-hydraulics ' methods supporting the design; and ECCS codes and methods.-

The : analyses.and evaluations presented in this report serve, in-bonjunction-with the other topical repor'es,

as - a reference-for future reload safety evaluations applicable to cor'es with - BWFC-supplied fuel

. assemblies.

1 Rev. 1

--i'-'

11/90-i

-... - - -... ~ - -. -.... - -... -. -.. -.. -. -. - -.. - - ~.. -... - -..... -. - - -

b i

6 l

I i

l l

I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The B&W Fuel Company wishes to acknowledge the efforts put'forth i

by J.

R._ Biller, J.

J.

Cudlin, B.

M.

Dunn, J. A. Klingenfus, R.

l J.

Lowe, C.

K.

Nithianandan, N.

H.

Shah, and K.

C.

Shich ~1n preparing and documenting the material contained in this report.

?

)

l i

i n

4 i

l l

e t

I- -

I J

.,,-.,...m,m.. -,,,,,, _, -.

-..4...,-,,,_,--

.m, A..

- - -.. ;._,.--..,,~.~

t, I

l Toolcal ReDort Revision Reggrd Documentation Revision Descrintion 0

original issue..

1 Add Appendix B--increased 9.7' case F,.

Correct x-scale on chapter 8 mass flux plots.

NRC requested updates.

1 P

Rev. 1

-- 111 -

11/90'

k qt.

-l l

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

[

i h

i s'-

I 1.

Introduction

..~.......

1.1 2.

Summary.and Conclusions.

2.1 1.

Y 1

3.

Plant Description 3.1 1

p 3.1 Physical Description'..

3.1 3.2 Description of Emergency Core Cooling System.

3.4 3.3 Plant Parameters.

3.5 f

4.

Analysis. Inputs and Assumptions._.

4.1 4.1 Computer. codes and Methods..

4.1 4.2 Inputs and Assumptions.........~.....

' 4.1 L

4.2.1 RELAPS/ MOD 2-B&W Modeling 4.2' 4.2.2 REFLOD3B Modeling.

4.7 i

4.2.3 FRAP-T6-B&W Modeling 4.9 I

4.2.4 BEACH Modeling 4.9 i

4.3 Comparison of Plant Model with McGuire & Catawba 4.10

!i 5.

Evaluation'Model Changes

'5.1 I

5.1 Revisions toLthe BWFC LOCA Evaluation Model.

5.2 5.2 Effects of Evaluation Mode 1' Revisions 5.4 1

t 4

6.

Sensitivity. Studies-.................

6.1 L

6.1 Evaluation-Model Generic Studies.

6.1-

[

6.2 Confirmable Sensitivity Studies 6.5 6.3 Break Location..

6.11 i

i I

t 0..

1 a

--v l

1

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

t e,

i f

)

7.

Plant-Specific Studies and Spectrum Analysis 7.1 7.1 Base Case 7.1 7.2 -Accumulator Configuration 7.2 7.3 Break Spectrum Analysis 7.3 7.5 7.4 Break Type.

l 7.5 Maximum ECCS Analysis

~

7.7

)

1 j

8.

LOCA Limits.

8.1 8.1 LOCA Limits Dependencies.

8.1 4 -.......

8.2 LOCA Limits Calculation Results

....--....- 8.3 8.3 Compliance to 10 CFR 50.46 8.6.1 4

9.

Whole-Core Oxidation and Hydrogen Generation.

9.1 10.

Core Geometry.

10.1 11.

Long-Term Cooling.

11.1 11.1 Initial Cladding Cooldown 11.1 11.2 Extended Coolant Supply

............- 11.2 11.3 Boric Acid Concentration-.

11.2 11.4 Adherence to Long-Term Cooling Criteria

- 11.4 12.

Small Break LOCA 12.1 12.1 SBLOCA Transient.

12.1 12.2 Fuel Design Effects 12.4

.....-. 1 12.3 Current FSAR Results.

12.7 12.4 Compliance with Acceptance' criteria _

12.7 13.

References 13.1.

t 4

l Rev. 11

- vi -

11/90 I

c

i Appendix A.

Evaluation of Transition Cores A1 i

A.1 OFA and Mark-BW Design Differences

1. 1 2

A.2 Assessment of Impact on Peak l

Cladding Temperatures.

A.3 A.3 Conclusions.

A.6 I

Appendix B.

F, Increase--9.7 ' I4CA Limits Case B.1 l-t 1

)

l List of Tables i

I d

Table Page l

2-1 Summary of Results (LOCA-Limit Runs) 2.3-

)

3-1 Plant Parameters and Opere. ting Conditions.

3.6' i

4-1 Comparison of I4CA Model-Geometric' Values to Plant FSAR Data 4.14 7-1 Spectrum and Break Type Comparison 7.9 l

8-1 ICCA Limits Results'..

8.7-l A-1 OFA / Mark-BW Design Differences

- A.7 B-1 LOCA Limits Results--Updated 9.7' Case B.3 l

4 5

a 1

1 Rev. 1

- vii -

11/90 s y-j:

4-

,, - -.r--

er-. +,- -.

4

.s..

,v,-,-

v,,-..-.r----e e,

..-,ec,--c, w.-

,-.-y.w,4,>e.

.i List of Picures Figure Page 4-1 Large Break Analysis Code Interface 4.16 4-2a RELAP5/ MOD 2-B&W LBLOCA Noding Diagram j

Reactor Coolant Loops 4.17 l

4-2b RELAPS/ MOD 2-B&W LBLOCA Noding Diagram i

Reactor Core.

4.18 4-3 REFLOD3B Noding Diagram 4.19 4-4 BEACH and FRAP-T6-B&W Noding Diagram for Mark-BW Fuel Assembly 4.20 5-1 Revision 0 Evaluation Model Codo Interfaces for Large Break. LOCA 5.9 6-1 Core Mass Flux for EM Spectrum Study Versus McGuire/ Catawba Base Model 6.13 6-2 TACO 3 Fuel Temperatures as a Function of Burnup 6.13 7-1 Plant-specific Studies Analysis Diagram 7.10 7-2 Sensitivity Study - Base Model System Pressure During Blowdown-.

7.11

......... =.

7-3 Sensitivity Study - Base Model-Mass Flux During Blowdown at Peak Power Location.

7.11 7-4_

Sensitivity Study - Base Model Reflooding Rate 7.12 7-5 Sensitivity Study - Base Model Heat Transfer Coefficient at Peak Power Location.

7.12 7-6 Sensitivity Study - Base Model Peak Cladding Temperature 7.13 7-7 Sensitivity Study - Base Model Cladding l

Temperature:at. Rupture Location 7.13 7-8 Sensitivity Study - Base Model Cladding Temperature in Adjacent Grid Span.

7.14 7-9a' Sensitivity Study - Base Model Fluid

. Temperature at PCT Location 7.14 7-9b Sensitivity Study - Base'Model Fluid Temperature at PCT Location 7.15

- viii.-

..Z

t 1

List of Ticures (Con't)

Figure Page 8-5 LOCA Limits Study - 2.9 Foot Case cladding Temperatures 8.10 8-6 LOCA Limits Study - 2.9 Foot Case Heat Transfer Coefficient at PCT Location.

8.10 8-7 LOCA Limits Study - 2.9 Foot case Local Oxidation 8.11 8-8 LOCA Limits Study - 4.6 Foot Case Mass Flux During Blowdown at Peak Power Location.

8.11 8-9 LOCA Limits Study - 4.6 Foot Case Cladding Temperatures 8.12 8-10 LOCA Limits Study - 4.6 Foot Case Heat Transfer Coefficient at PCT Location.

8.12 8-11 LOCA Limits Study - 4.6 Foot Case Local Oxidation 8.13 8-12 LOCA Limits Study - 6.3 Foot case Mass Flux During Blowdown at Peak Power Location.

8.13 8-13 LOCA Limits Study - 6.3 Foot Case Cladding Temperatures 8.14 8-14 LOCA Limits Study - 6.3 Foot Case Heat Transfer coefficient at PCT Location.

8.14 8-15 LOCA Limits Study - 6.3 Foot Case Local Oxidation 8.15 8-16 LOCA Limits Study - 8.0 Foot Case Mass Flux During Blowdown at Peak Power Location.

8.15 8-17 LOCA Limits Study - 8.0 Foot Case Cladding Temperatures 8.16 8-18 LOCA Limits Study - 8.0 Foot Case Heat Transfer Coefficient at PCT Location.

8.16 8-19 LOCA Limits Study - 6.0 Foot Case Local Oxidation 8.17 8-20 LOCA Limits Study - 9.7 Foot Case Mass Flux During Blowdown at Peak Power Location.

8.17

- xiii -

i-1 l

j l

i f

List of Fleures (Con't)

Figure LPage 8-21 LOCA Limits Study - 9.7 Foot Case j

4 Cladding Temperatures 8.18 l

8-22 LOCA Limits Study - 9.7 Foot Case Heat j

Transfer Coefficient at PCT Location.

8.18 j

8-23 LOCA Limits Study - t Sot Case l

Local Oxidation 8.19 b

B-1 Axial Dependence o 3 Total Peaking t

Factor Large Break

.rk-BW, Updated a

B.4.

9.7 Foot Case h

B-2 LOCA Limit Study - Axial Powsr S*.,

Updated 9.7 Foot case B.4 B-3 LOCA Limits Study - Upot.., -s.7 Foot Case Mars Flux During Blowdown.,,c Penk I

j-Power Location B.5 B-4 LOCA Limits Study - Updated 9.7 Foot case

[

Cladding Temperatures B.5 B-5 LOCA Limits Study - Updated 9.7-Foot Case Heat Transfer Coefficient at PCT Location B.6-i B-6 LOCA Limits Study --Updated 9.7 Foot Case I

Local Oxidation 1B.6-e i

l 1

-n L

Rev. 1

- xiv -

11/90

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

i 4,

i Table 2-1 Summary of Results (I4CA Limit Runs) i I

I Core Peak Cladding Maximum Oxidation,%

l Elevatlon. ft Temeerature. F1 Local.Whgle Core

-l.

2.9 1816 3.' 4 0.25 1

2 0.412 l.

l 4.6

'1963 5.2 i

6.3 1873' 4.8 0.40 4

8.0 1930 4.7 0.32 9.73 1823 3.7 0.29 l.

1 j

i i

See the response to question number 30 on'BAW-10174 and the i

response to question 5 on BAW-10166, Revision 2.

I 2

~

j See the response to question number 13 on'BAW-10174 and the

~

response to question number 2 on BAW-10168, Revision'1.

l 3

See Appendix B ' (reanalysis of the 9'.7' case at a higher F ).

q L

1

i. -

l 1

Rev. 1

- 2.3 -

11/90 j

j l

i i

1 l

8.

LOCA' Limits

[

T1e LOCA evaluation is completed with a set of analyses done to i

snow compliance with 10 CPR 50.46 for the core power and peaking.

f F

that will be taken as the limiting LOCA conditions for core operation, that is, the LOCA limits.

The term limit is applied I

lI because these cases are run'at the limit of allowable local power operation.

Actually, these LOCA evaluations serve as the-. bases

)

for the allowable local power.

As

such, the LOCA limits j

I calculations comprise the cases that are used to demonstrate j

i compliance of the - reload fuel cycles and peaking limits to the f

j criteria of 10 CFR 50.46..

Five-runs are made at differing axial

-j j

elevations such that a curve of allowable peak linear heat rates as a function of elevation in the core can be constructed,or, in l

this case, confirmed.

This curve becomes a part of the plant f

a t

j technical specifications, and plant operation is controlled such that the local peaking and power ' do not exceed.the allowable values.

(Note: The 9.'7' LOCA limits case has been reanalyzed at f

en higher - F, and the results of the case are reported in Appendix l

B along with a revised total peaking factor curve, Figure B-1.)

[

i M

LOCA Limits Conditions f

?

The absolute LOCA limits to power and peaking for each elevation in the core can be determined -- through repeated calculations at each elevation, with successively higher. local power levels, until the analysis shows one or more of the. applicable acceptance l

4 criteria to be exceeded.

The highest-linear' heat rate for which -

j the criteria are not exceeded'is the absolute LOCA - limit for a

+

particular. elevation.

The more practical

approach, the one adopted - for this report, assumes a' set ofLpeaking;: limits at a a

given power level that have been determined to be acceptable for i

fuel cycle design and plant operations purposes.

The LOCA limitr i

I Rev. 1

.8.1 -

11/90 i

-f l

1 i

k I

L 1

l t

. a

(.._

. - -.. - - - - -. ~ -.

. ~..... _

r s

a l

8 1

analyses are then done to confirm that the assumed limits will i

meet the applicable criteria.

l 1

Figure 8-1 shows the axial power and peaking selected and-f confirmed as applicable to-the McGuire and - Catawba plants for operation:with Mark-BW fuel.

With the-axial power and peaking f

dependency established, IOCA calculations are performed with the.

j core power ' level and total peaking initialized at dif ferent '

j-positions on the curve to demonstrate that these peaking l[

limitations assure compliance with x10 - CFR 50. 4 6.

Should the :

i s

results-not-comply, the allowed-- peaking is reduced, and the-l analysis is repeated until acceptable results can - be obt ained.

=

i i

Likewise, if : the results show.-large. margins-of compliance, the j

peaking may be increased to provide, additional operational l

[

i flexibility.

For those analyses,. neither of these steps was taken although the results do show considerable margins.at l

certain elevations.

l l

An additional. condition assumed 'ini these analyses is' that, the I

fuel-assembly burnup 'in allowable peaking will _ be ' dependent on accordance with Figure B-2.

This limitation is made necessary.

l l

because, at burnups approaching. 50000 mwd /MTu, the = initial fuel f

f enthalpy and internal pressure can become: -a' more.

severe

+

combination than the beginning-of-life values.

By' assuring that the local heating rates will be limited to those 'shown in; Figure l

L 8-2, the reduction in power compensates for the increases-in-fuel:

temperaturo and -pin pressure such-that the 1beginning-of-life L

conditions remain the most severe.

_(Thisfis' discussed:in' greater _

. j detail in the time-in-life sensitivitye studies,: - Section ' 6. 2. )

f Therefore, Figure 8-2 is :a limit of ' ~ operation - for the. Mark-BW-fuel.-

The limit is checked during ' the fuel - design l process.

f Ilowever, lat the high.burnup at1which the limit.-is imposed - there l

r should be no restrictions on; core operation,. because the highly -

l f

Rev. 1 l

- 8'.21-11/90 1

a

=

m

~ s

depleted fuel is unlikely to reach-the limit within the operational envelopes of the plant Technical Specifications.

M LOCA Limits Results To validate Figure 8-1, five separate LOCA calculations were_

performed.

Power peaks were run centered at the middle of the I

i second through the sixth grid spans.

Figure A-3 shows the axial 4

power shapes evaluated.

For all cases, the radial power peaking was 1.55.

The combination of the axial peaking of Figure 8-3 and a 1.55 radial yields the total peaking at the corresponding elevation shown in Figure 8-1.

The results of the calculations are tabulated in Table B-l'and shown in Figures 8-4 through 8-23.

The figures comprise five sets with four figures in each set.

The four figures of each set-show (1) the mass flux at the elevation of peak power, (2) the cladding temperature-for three different locations on the pin,

'(3) the heat transfer coefficient at the location of highest cladding temperature, and (4)- the distribution of-cladding i

oxidation along the pin.

Only one mass flux plot is provided for I

each case because the axial variations in mass flux are not strong.

This can be observed by comparing the five mass flux curves for the different peaking cases.-

To demonstrate the cladding temperature results, thrce curves are presented for each case.

Temperature histories are shown for the rupture location,- for the node. adjacent -to - the rupture, and for the high temperature. node in an adjacent grid span.

For power distributions peaked toward the middle of - the core, rupture location is almost certain to correspond to.the location of peak I

power.

Near the time of

rupture, the portion.of the -pin immediately above.the-rupture site will be at nearly the same-temperatu';e.- Following rupture, the burst' location cools quickly Rev. 1

- 8.3 -

11/90

j as the cladding pulls away from the fuel, and the-area for heat transfer is increased.

Due to axial heat conduction in the cladding and the effect of the rupture -on flow - conditions, - the cooling in the node just above the rupture is substantially improved.

This means that although one' of the nodes in the adjacent grid span is at a lower power, it can develop as. the location of the highest cladding temperature.

The heat transfer coefficient-(HTC) -is shown for the peak cladding temperature location. 'HTC variations with elevation are as expected (see -Figures 7-51 through 7-53)',- such that the HTC from one elevation' reasonably characterizes the other elevations.

The last figure in each. set shows the local' oxide' thickness as a function of elevation for the. fuel pin.

Each figure shows total.

oxidation including that assumed prior to the start of the accident.

Oxidation-up to the time-the-cladding falls below 1500 F or the elevation. has been covered - by mixture, ' as measured by.

the REPLOD3B core-water level, is included.

The large variations of the resultant curve reflect. the relatively -lower. cladding oxidation in the vicinity of.the grid and rupture' locations.

2.9-ft Peak Power Case In this case, the axial power shape is peaked well below'the core

midplane,

'and the-cladding temperature-responses differ accordingly f rom those calculated in'the 4

,6-~,

and.8-ft cases; The-peak power locations on - the rod are cooled rapidlyE during reflood and have not reached temperatures ' sufficient to cause--- a rupture by the time of temperature turnaround.

~Therefore, _ the rupture occurs in node 8, the' center node of the grid span above the location of peak power.

This region of_the core is: also-cooled rapidly, and the. peak cladding temperaturo occurs in the grid span above the ruptured location.

Although the' power at-the midplane is about 80 percent of that at the peak power-location, Rev. 1

- 8.4 -

11/90 L

the central node in the mid-core grid span produces the highest cladding temperature, 1810 F.

The highest local oxidation, 3.4

percent, occurs at the ruptured location.

The whole core oxidation calculated for this LOCA is 0.25 percent.

4.6-ft Peak Power Case With the power peaked at 4.6

feet, the cladding temperature responses resemble closely those obtained for the other two mid-core peaks.

The rupture occurs at the location of peak power.

The node above the rupture experiences increased cooling post

rupture, and the peak cladding temperature occurs in the downstream grid span (node 11).

The temperature at this location is about 100 F above the temperatures near the rupture location.

The highest local oxidation, 5.2 percent, also occurs at the mid-core elevation.

The whole core oxidation during this LOCA is 0.41 percent, the highest obtained in the set of LOCA limits analyses.

6.3-ft Peak Power Case For a peak power situated at the core midplane, the cladding temperature response corresponds to that described in the previous paragraph.

The rupture is at the location of peak power.

For this case, however, the post rupture cooling axial conduction does not outweigh the effect of the relatively lower power at the next span, and the peak cladding temperature occurs in the node just above the rupture location.

As shown in Figure 8-13, the peak temperature, 1873 F,

is only slightly higher, by about 70 F,

than that predicted for the next higher grid span.

The highest local oxidation in this case, 4.8 percent, occurs for the peak cladding temperature node.

The whole core oxidation is 0.40 percent.

Rev. 1

-8.5-11/90 1

J

__.m____._-______-m__

8.0-ft Peak Power Case Again, the temperature respons.es follow the pattern described for the previous two cases.

Here, with the power peaked toward the

outlet, the grid span that will produce high cladding temperatures lies below the location of peak power.

The rupture occurs at the location of peak power and the peak cladding temperature, 1930 F, is predicted to occur in the grid span below the peak location.

The markedly higher flow velocities at-the higher elevations, in conjunction with rupture cooling effects and the drop-off of

power, combine to produce a

c.1 adding temperature in the node above the rupture location that is nearly 200 F below the peak cladding temperature (node 12).

The highest local oxidation is 4.7 percent, and the whole core oxidation is 0.32 percent.

l 9.7-ft Peak Power Case In accordance with the axial dependency of power peaking shown in Figure 8-1, this case is run at a slightly lower total peaking than the other four cases.

The location of peak power is in node 17, which experiences some cooling due to grid effects.

With the reduction in peaking and the severe outlet-shape, the power in node 15 is close to that in node 17.

Because the lower location, node 15, is at the end of the grid span, there is little, if any, grid effect.

Thus, node 15 is the first location on the fuel pin to reach the rupture temperature.

Since the rupture occurs at a node adjacent to the grid span, the rupture and spacer grid effects combine to provide better cooling in a higher powered grid span.

The peak temperature, 1823 F,' occurs just below the rupture location.

The peak local oxidation is 3.7 percent and the whole core oxidation is 0.29 percent.

(Note: ~ The 9.7' case has been reanalyzed at a higher _ F and the results of the q

analysis are reported in Apperdix B.)

Rev. 1

- 8.6 -

11/90

i e

l L.1 Comollance to 10 CFR 50.46 The LOCA limits calculations directly demonstrate compliance to two of the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 and serve as the basis for demonstrating compliance with two others.

As seen in the figures and in Table 8-1, the highect peak cladding temperature, 1963 F, and the highest local oxidation, 5.2 percent, are well below the i

2200 F and 17 percent criteria.

Chapter 9 documents compliance with the whole core oxidation limit based on the local oxidations calculated for these evaluations, and Chapter 10 documents the core geometry based on the deformations predicted for the LOCA.

Rev. 1

- 8.6.1 -

11/90

j; _ '- ',..-

A 1

Table 8-1 LOCA Limits.Results-

[

Elevation of Peak' Power,. Feet item or Parameter 2.9 4.6 6.3 8.0 9.~ 724 p End-of-Blowdown, s-21.0 21.3 21.2 20.7 20.8~

Liquid _in Reactor Vessel-at EOB, ft3

~

70.2 71.8

83.9 79.0 93.1 Bottom-of-Core Recovery,--s 33.0-33.7 33'.5 32.8 32.9-Time of Rupture,_s 81.8 74.4-67.6 73.8 84.4 Ruptured Node

• 8-8

'll 14:

15 PCT at Rupture Node, F

_1611 1669' 1666' 1655-1602-.

Oxide at Rupture Node, 4 3.4 3.5 4'. 8 1.5 0.8 Node Adjacent to Rupture

• 9 9

12 15 14-PCT of Adjacent Node, F

'1804 1839 1873 1753 1823 Oxide at Adj'acent Node,-%

2.9-3.1 4.4 3.0 3.2 Node in Adjacent

-Grid Span

• 11

-11 14

,12 12 PCT of Adjacent Grid Span, F 1816-

-_19 6 3_

1805

1930 1718--

Oxide at Adjacent-Grid Span, %

3.0 5.2

-~3.4--

4.7 2kOL Pin PCT Node'*

11 11 12 12 14 Peak Local Oxidation, %

3.4 5.2:

4.8

-4.7 3.7

-Whole Core Oxidation, %

0.25' O.41, 0.'40 0.32 0.29 Refer to, Figure 4-4:for noding arrangement.=

1 See the - responses to question numbers 13 and ' 30 on - BAW-

10174, the -response to question.. number 2-on.;BAW-10168-,-

Revision 2,.. and-- the response. to - _ question - number 5 on BAW-10166, Revision:2.

2 The _ 9. 7 ' case has been> reanalyzed at a highet: F results of the analysis are reported in Appendix B.g and -the-Rev. 1

- 8.7 11/90

-i

- FIGURE 81 AXIAL DEPENDENCE OF ALLOWED TOTAL PEAKING FACTOR LARGEiBREAK LOCA MARK BW 2.80 2.40 E

8 1.00 1.20 g

S 0.80 0.40

+

t t

e t

t s

9 9

9 9

0 2

4 6

8 10 12 l

CORE ELEVATION, FEET FIGURE 8 2 'NORMAllZED LOCAL POWER BURNUP DEPENDENCY FACTOR 1.20 1.00 8

g 1

0,80 1

0.80 O.40

.M-i 0.20 l-l 0

O 20000 40000

- 60000 l

BURNUP, mwd /MTu 1

- 8.'8 -

f u=.

_. -.. - ~.

t FIGURE 8 3 LOCA LIMIT. STUDY ' AXIAL-POWER SHAPES 2.0

~-

1.8 -

1.6 -

........,.s.,.--~y--,

8 3,4 _

..,7 -

..s s

,,,s 3

_ N----

,\\

y t

./

.a <

\\

\\

1.2 -

/

/

/

,e'

\\

\\

\\

\\

N s-8 y

8

/

1.0 -

/. s ' p' s

'. \\( s j

/

s j

e

/j'f

., - -- s 0.8 -

/

,'..,\\

\\

T j-p NN s

(

s

\\~

"~~ gg';./S.

0.6 -

2.9 FOOT CASE

' N. s s

g

. d,

-e 4.8 FOOT CASE 0.4 -

6.3 FOOT CASE

- 8.0 FOOT CASE 0.2 -

9.7 FOOT CASE -

0 i

0 20 40 00

-80 100 120' 140 CORE ELEVATION, INCHES -

. FIGURE 8 4 LOCA LIMITS STUDY - 2.9 FOOT CASE

. MASS FLUX DURING BLOWDOWN AT PEAK POWER LOCATION 100 120 -

2A/G AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 =

40 -

i t

. j-c M

. 40 -

0-120 -

k k

k k

b.

h j

j l

[

h I

~0 4

8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME, S t

8.9 -

Rev. 1 l

11/90 u

l J

FIGURE 8 5 - LOCA UMITS STUDY 2.9 FOOT CASE CLADDING TEMPERATURES 2000 -

\\

p --- n =- ~x-........., _ - ~ -

/ *'..

- - ~ ' - - - - - -

6 h

h ll 1200 - l (7

/

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 800 -

RUPTURE LOCATION-NODE 8 400 --

ADJACENT TO RUPTURE LOCATION-NODE 9 PCT LOCATION-NODW 11 0

0 200 400 000 TIME, S FIGURE 8-6 LOCA LIMITS STUDY - 2.9 FOOT CASE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AT--PCT LOCATION 1000.

W 500 -

Q g

g I

i 100 2NG AT PO WITH Cd = 1.0 50

. NOCE 11 a:

b l

- 10 :

p ::,::tr - :--4::.:::..

5-0 200-400 600 TIME, S

.8.10 -

d -

n

a ',

' FIGURE-8 7 LOCA LIMITS STUDY 2.9 FOOT CASE LOCAL OXIDATION 10 8-

~

f 6-2A/G AT PO WITH Cd = 1.0 1

2-O 0

2 4.

6 8

.10 12 CORE ELEVATION, FEET FIGURE 8-8 LOCA LIMITS STUDY 4.6 FOOT CASE MASS FLUX DURING BLOWDOWN AT PEAK. POWER LOCATION?

100 i

120 -

80 -

2A/G AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0' 40 -

0 Y

80 -

s 120 -

100 0

4 8

12 16

-20 24 28 TIME, S

- 8.11 -

Rev. 1 11/90 k

e

-.. ~-

..n

..... ~...

~,y FIGURE 8 9 LOCA LIMITS.SRIDY 4.6 ' FOOT" CASE'

~

CLADDING TEMPERATURES-2m0 -

rs",e ",,.

~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~.,.

' ' ' ' ' ~,

1600 -

-u..,,,

l l

e'

,I 1200 -

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 -

d

\\

800 -

RUPTURE LOCATION-NODE 8 400 -

ADJACENT TO RUPTURE LOCATION-NODE 9 PCT LOCATION-NODE 11.

0 0

200L 400' 000 TIME, S -

FIGURE 810 LOCA LIMITS STUDY - 4.6 FOOT. CASE HEAT-TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AT-PCT ~ LOCATION 1000 --

5 I

100. -

Q

- 2NG AT PO WITH Cd = 1.0 '

u-D l.

- l3 -

NOOE 11-5

~

10 }

f p.-

_ =:

.,m :

.,-_. 3,. ::n n

- g 5-

}.

l r

L 0

200-400

- 600-o TIME, S' i

i

--8.~12 I

we-g

+

_,3-m.

6_y.,..

.-w.---

9

,p y 9, ity9sy.yw iy

+yge ew' g-tw9 y-

i FIGURE 811 LOCA LIMITS STUDY 4.6 FOOT CASE -

LOCAL OXIDATION -

10 8-8 8

6-P 2NG AT PD WlTH Cd = 1.0 -

.i 2-0 i

0 2

4 6

8 10 12 CORE ELEVATION, FEET

~ FIGURE 812' LOCA LIMITS STUDY - 6.3 FOOT CASE MASS FLUX DURING BLOWDOWN AT PEAK POWER LOCATION-160 120 -

80 -

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 :

40 -

0 m-4o.

80 -

-120 -

160 0

4 8

12 16 20 24 28 TIME, S

- 8.13 --

Rev. 1 11/90 d.

r 4

FIGURE 813 LOCA LIMITS STUDY 6.3 FOOT CASE CLADDING -TEMPERATURES -

2000 -

g.,,_.,_~-.,,.,,.._....,_,,e----..,...,,,,,,,,,,_

+

i

...a*

1600 -

1 r

50 '

I*

it 1200 ~

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 1

A 800 -

b RUFTURE LOCATION-NODE 11 400 -

PCT LOCATION-NODE 12 i

ADJACENT GRIO SPAN-NODE 14 i

0 0

200 400 600 TIME, S i

FIGURE 814 LOCA LIMITS STUDY - 6.3 FOOT CASE HEAT-TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AT PCT LOCATION-1000 -

{5 i

.tc E

(

100 -

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0

~

50 -

NODE 12 i

o I

10 -

g 5-O 0-200 400 600 TIME, S 8'.14'-

t

FIGURE 8-15 LOCA LIMITS STUDY - 6.3 FOOT CASE-LOCAL OXIDATION 10 8-

{

~

6-

-l

. 2NQ AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 1

2-0 4

i 0

2 4

6 8-

-10

-12 CORE-ELEVATION, FEET 4

FIGURE 816 LOCA' LIMITS-STUDY - 8.0 FOOT CASE MASS -FLUX DURING BLOWDOWN AT' PEAK POWER LOCATION 180 120 -

80 -

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0-40 -

1 0

i

1. ~

i

.go.

l 120 -

')

• l i

i a

i a

6 i

6 6

i 0

4 8

12 16 20 24 28 TIME, S i

- 8.15 -

Rev. 1

-11/90

,, ~.. -

,f

• g.

FIGURE' 817 LOCA UMITS STUDY - 8.0 FOOT CASE :

CLADDING TEMPERATURES 2000 -

. s,,,,,D 2 *

,..,n 7.

, (',f,.

~ ~-

- ^~-

1000 -

A_

j 1200 -

2A/O AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 -

RUPTURE LOCATION-NODE 14 ~

400 -

ADJACENT TO RUPTURE LOCATION-NODE 15 PCT LOCATION-NODE 12 0

I O

200-400 600 TIME, S FIGURE 818 LOCA LIMITS STUDY - 8.0 FOOT CASE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT-AT PCT LOCATION 1000 -

500 s

100.

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0-k 50 --

NODE 12 l3 I

_D 1

WTY w

wv T*T*1 1

5-0 200 400 600 TIME, S 8.16 -

FIGURE 819 LOCA LIMITS STUDY 8.0 FOOT CASE-LOCAL OXIDATION 10 i

e-6-

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 5

2-0 0

2 4

6 8

10

'12 CORE ELEVATION, FEET FIGURE 8 20 LOCA LIMITS STUDY - 9.7 FOOT CASE MASS FLUX DURING BLOWDOWN AT. PEAK POWER LOCATION.

160 120 -

80 -

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 -

4o.

. )

O j-

[

M-120 -

i

• 160 i

0 4

8 12 16 20 24

- 28 TIME, S

- 8.17 -

-Rev. 1 11/90

.. ~.

9 FIGURE 8 21 LOCA LIMITS STUDY 9.7 FOOT CASE

- CLADDING TEMPERATURES 2000 -

,..-._, ~nu.WA.,

1600 --

7-

~

-~~ ;

A u.

l 1200 ~

,/

- 2A/O AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 600 -

u RUPTURE LOCATION-NODE 15 PCT LOCATION-NODE 14

1. ~

ADJACENT GRID SPAN-NODE 12

~------

PEAK POWER LOCATION-NODE 17 -

0 i

i 0

200 400 600 TIME S FIGURE 8-22' LOCA' LIMITS STUDY - 9.7 FOOT CASE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AT PCT LOCATION 1000.

t.

500 -

y E

l 100 ;

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1,0 NODE 14 50 -

1

'O }

h ::,.,,

,,:, p y n

5 I

5-I(1 1{

1 i

i 0

200 O

600 TIME, S 8.18 q-d'

9.

Whole-Core oxidation-and Hydroaen Generation-t' The third criterion of 10 CFR 50.46 states that the calculated l

total amount of hydrogen generated from the chemical reaction of the cladding with water or steam shall not exceed 0.'01 times the hypothetical amount that would be generated if all of the metal in the cladding cylinders surrounding the fuel, excluding the cladding surrounding the plenum volume,. were to react.-

The method provided in the BWFC evaluation model,. Reference 1,

has been applied to determine corewide oxidation for each of the.IOCA limits cases.

In the calculations, local cladding oxidation was computed as long as_the cladding temperature remained above 1500 F, and the REFLOD3B analysis did not show thatJthe cladding was within the core flooded region.

The flooded region of the. core was conservatively taken to be twenty percent-above - the core collapsed liquid level.

These local oxidations are summed.over the core to give the core-wide oxidation.

The figures in Chapter 8 give the local oxidation for the hot pin including the initial oxide layer.

The only difference-between these distributions and the ones used for the whole core calculation is that the initial oxide layer is subtracted before the integration :in order to provide a measure of the hydrogen produced during the LOCA.

The

-results of these calculations for each of the-power distributions of the LOCA Limits cases are:

Case Whole Core Oxidation, %

'-ft Peak-0.25-4.6-ft Peak 0.41 l

1 6.3-ft Peak O.40 8.0-ft Peak 0.32 9.7-ft Peak 0.29 g

2 i

See the rasponse to' question number 13 on BAW-10174.

2 The 9. 7 ' case has been reanalyzed at a higher F and the results of the analysis are reported in Appendix B.,

Rev.

1-

- 9.1 -

-11/90

a f

., l: '

Because~ - these cases - represent -a range.- of the-possible power distributions that' can occur-in _ the plant, the maximum ' possible oxidationLthat can occur-during a-LOCA-at the McGuire or.. Catawba' plants-is -' calculated to be less?than: 0. 41-percent.

Thus,' the third criterion of -10_ CFR 50.46,-- which limits - the reaction. to '1

_ percent or less, is met with considerable' margin.

--9.2'-

o

o 4 c,

assemblies differ in the following areast unrecoverable pressure drops across the assemblies, initial fuel temperatures', initial pin internal gas pressure, and the axial power profile.

The impact of each of these items, with respect to the controlling aspects of-the F ROCA transient, will be evaluated 'in the.

following paragraphs.

f Mark-BW fuel assemblies have unrecoverable pressure drops that are approximately 1 % i lower than those of the Westinghouse OFA assemblies.

The associated-effect in overall loop-pressure drop would translate to less than 1 percent difference in the' initial-forced flow.

At the same steady-state core power and effectively identical loop flows, the controlling hot leg initial temperature is also essentially unaffected.

.The maximum hot leg temperature-variation will be less than 1 F.

Thus, the ; initial subcooled depressurization phase of the SBLOCA ' will be unaltered.

The reactor trip signal and pump trips will occur at the same time in

-the transient as in the reference-FSAR calculations.

The impact of the fuel bundle resistance will be even less during the pump coastdown and natural circulation phase because the flows during this phase are much reduced.

Significant margins exist such that CHF will not be exceeded.

All of the initial stored energy - in the fuel will still -be transferred -to and removed by. the steam generators.

Therefore, core resistance variations will not change the fuel thermal transient-or; impact the existing evaluations.

Changes -in the initial fuel ' temperature add or subtract overall energy from the.RCS.

The initial 1 fuel' energy.is removed from the fuel pin during the reactor coolant pump coastdown - phase and rejected from - the system via the steam generators.

Therefore, the initial fuel enthalpy 'of operation has virtually no impact

- 12.5 -

~

.. l - ' (,

beyond the-loop coastdown period.-

The core energy content during

-l the loop draining and boil-off - node w ! '. 1. b e i d e n t i c a l to the current licensing base.

)

The fuel pin internal gas fill-pressures are similar to the Westinghouse values, but may differ slightly.

The internal: gas pressure could affect the fuel / cladding gap dimensions and j

rupture time.

During the-initial phase of the accident however, the fuel temperatures approach the system saturation temperature within a fraction of a minute following reactor trip and the impact of gap differences is negligible.

During the core boil down phase the timing of rupture could differ slightly.

The Mark-BW fuel pin has a larger internel gas volume, a slightly larger fuel. volume, and a slightly higher fill gas pressure than the OFA.

Because of the higher-fill gas pressure the Mark-BW fuel will have a slightly higher internal pressure at beginning-of-life conditions.

However, because of the larger gas volume available the Mark-BW pressurization with-burnup will be. slower than the OFA's.

At burnups for which a rupture is possible during SBLOCA, the OFA fuel - pin is higher in pressure than the Mark-BW.

The difference, although very small, would tend to delay the rupture 'of the Mark-BW over the OFA.

However, since the SBLOCA temperatures peak at approximately 1500 F, the impact of a difference in rupture timing on the; resultant peak cladding temperature is negligible.

As a

final-

point, SBLOCA imposed plant operating

limits, i

including maximum allowable total. peaking, will not be altered f

due to the use-of -BWFC-supplied fuel.

Thus, the axial power profile used by Westinghouse in the SBLOCA analyses remains bounding.

This assures that the thermal load imposed on the fuel during a. temperature excursion remains conservatively modeled.

The thermal results, cladding temperatures, for-the present FSAR evaluations are, therefore, conservative for Mark-BW fuel.

Rev. 1

- 12.6 -

11/90

=

In summary, the core resistance variations _ will not affect the loop flows-_ such that the controlling hot leg temperature or CHF points are altered.

The steam generator heat removal rate during the flow coastdown period will compensate for. any initial fuel stored energy fluctuations.

All controlling parameters in the phases following the pump coastdown and natural circulation phase will be unchanged.

Therefore, since the overall ' RCS geometry, initial operating conditions, licensed

power, and governing phenomena are effectively unchanged,

~ the existing

-FSAR calculations should remain bounding for operation of the Catawba and McGuire units with BWFC-supplied ~ fuel.

12.3 Current FSAR Results The Westinghouse calculations of SBLOCA accidents for the McGuire and Catawba units are not the limiting LOCAs as predicted by the NOTRUMP and 14CTA-IV computer codes.

The calculated results documented in the current McGuire and Catawba FSARs predict peak

~

SBLOCA cladding temperatures -less than 1500 F.

All parameters are well within the acceptance criteria limits of 10 CFR :50.46.

Even wide variations in SBLOCA results would not cause theLSBLOCA to be limiting.

Thus, considerable margins exist such that variations in the SBLOCA_results would not-alter either the plant-technical specificctions or operating procedures.

12.4 Compliance'with Accentance Criteria-The existing SBLOCA calculations-contained in the McGuire and Catawba FSARs-are valid and bounding for the'BWFC Mark-BW fuel.

The reactor coolant system,-decay heat levels; and other system controlling parameters remain ' unchanged by the reload fuel.

A significant safety margin : exists between the calculated results 4

and 10 CFR 50.46 limits.

The fuel design differences between the-Westinghouse OFA and the BWFC Mark-BW do not substantially alter i

Rev.'l

- 12.7 -

11/90=

l 44 t

..l

'3, the results-- of - SBLOCA evaluations.-

Adequate ~ core cooling has-already been - demonstrated. and - does: - not - need - to.be repeated because of the change. in, fuel design.

The present SBLOCA evaluation calculations. remain valid for the McGuire~and Catawba fuel reloads supplied-by BWFC.-

These analyses remain the small break evaluations of record for demonstrating compliance with the criteria of 10~CFR 50.46.

i

(

.Rev. 1

- 12.8 -

11/90'

t ADoendix B.

Fa Increase--9.7' LOCA Limits Case (THIS APPENDIX WAS ADDED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN REVISION 1 OF BAW-10174, DATED NOVEMBER 1990.)

The analysis of the 9.7' LOCA limits case reported in Chapter 8 was based on a total peaking factor, F,

of 2.1, as shown in q

Figure 8-1.

This appendix presents the results of a reanalysis of the 9.7' case at a total peak of 2.23, an increase of 0.13 from the original calculation reported in Chapter 8.

The updated total peaking factor curve, which replaces that presented in Figure 8-1 as an LBLOCA limit on plant operation, is shown in Figure B-1.

The total peaking burnup adjustment fector curve shown in Figure 8-2 remains unchanged and applies to the peaking factors in Figure B-1.

Radial peaking was maintained at 1.55 in the reanalysis, and the revised axial power profile is presented in Figure B-2.

i The results presented in this appendix are based on tuo methodology modifications not in the Chapter 8 work.

First, the Chapter 8 analyses were based on BEACH Version 10.0.

During the licensing review of BAW-10174, BWFC discovered code errors in the BEACH Version 10.0 gap heat transfer logic.

The errors were corrected in BEACH Version 11.0 and reported to the NRC in the response to question number 5 on BAW-10166 (BEACH), Revision 2.

(NRC has approved the use of BEACH Version 11.0 in their August 13, 1990 SER on the BEACH topical report, BAW-10166.)

The impact of the code errors on Chapter 8 results was assessed in the response to question number 30 on BAW-10174, and found not to produce substantial changes in PCT.

Secondly, in response to question number 2 on BAW-10168, Revision 1,

BWFC revised its metal-water reaction methodology from a 1500 F to a 1000 F Rev. 1

- B.1 -

11/90

threshold temperature.

The impact of the change on the results reported in Chapter:8 was assessed 11n the response -- to question number 13 on BAW-10174, and was found to produce small changes in results and to maintain significant margins to 10CFR50.46 limits.

The update 9.7' case described in this appendix used BEACH Version 11.0 and the upgraded metal-water reaction methodology.

Figures B-3 through B-6 presents the results of the 9.7' case reanalysis, and Table B-1 presents a ' comparison between the original and revised; cases.

Basic trends ~ between the original and revised cases remain unchanged.

The PCT increased only 19'F l

from 1823 F-to 1842 F.

Peak-local oxidation ~ changed from 3.7 percent to 3.4 percent, while whole core oxidation increased from 0.29 percent to 0.44 percent.

The decrease in the' peak local oxidation percentage is a-direct result ~of using the quench front i

to terminate oxidation.

For the original case oxidation was terminated based on 120 percent of the core collapsed. water level, whereas the revised analysis 'used the REFLOD3B predicted quench height.

Comparing quench front advancement and 120 percent of the-collapsed. water level, on an elevation-versus time plot, shows that, above-a core-height of about eight - fett, the quench front curve predicts:an earlier, quench time than does the collapsed water level curve.

Based on the responses to questions 13 and 30 on BAW-10174, the 4.6' LOCA limits case will still remain limiting with respect-to PCT and clad oxidation percentage.

3 The reanalysis of - the 9.7f LOCA limits case resulted in a peak clad temperature of:1842 F,

andylocal' and whole' core oxidation percentages of 3.4 percent and-0.44 percent, respectively.

Core geometry (Chapter 10) and long-term cooling (Chapter 11). are not impacted by the reanalysis.

Thus, compliance with - the five criteria of 10CFR50.46 has been demonstrated.

Rev. 1

- B.2 -

11/90

Table B-1 LOCA Limits Results--Updated 9.7' Case 9.7' Location of Peak Power Item or Parameter pricinal UDdated End-of-Blowdown, s 20.8 21.0 Liquid in Reactor Vessel at EOB, ft3 79.0 83.7 Bottom-of-Core Recovery, s 32.9 33.1-Time of Rupture, s 84.4

B 4.1 Ruptured Node

• 15 15 PCT at Rupture Node, F 1602 1604 Oxide at Rupture Node, %

0.8 1.1 Node Adjacent to Rupture

• 14 14 PCT of Adjacent Node, F 1823 1842 Oxide at Adjacent Node, %

3.2 3.4 Node in Adjacent Grid Span

• 12 12 PCT of Adjacent Grid Span, F 1718 1700 Oxide at Adjacent Grid Span, %

2.0 0.6 Pin PCT Node

• 14 14 Peak Local Oxidation, %

3.7

.3. 4 Whole Core Oxidation, %

0.29 0.44 Refer to Figure 4-4 for noding arrangement.

Rev. 1 11/90

- B.3

fN,:

'FIGURELB 1' AXIAL DEPENDENCE OF ALLOWED TOTAL PEAKING FACTOR:

LARGE-BREAK LOCA? MARK BW, UPDATED 9.7 FOOT CASE -

l L

2.80

-p 2.40 y'

~

2.00 I

i 1.00

)

i

h 1.20 i

.g.

G f

0.80

,1 1

- 0.40

-2, f

f f

9 I

f f

'f f'

4 '

q 0

2:

-4 6 -'

8 210-12~

~f CORE ELEVATION,. FEET ;

.Jj FIGURE B-2; LOCA LIMIT STUDY'-~ AXIAL POWER SHAPE 1

UPDATED 9.7 FOOT CASE 2.0 1,8 ' -

1.6-1

~

1.4 -

/p,.

~3

.1.2 -

/,..-

l 0.8 -

/',,

1.0 -

/

l

/

('

,e

-E.

0.6 -

\\ .

. 9.7 - FOOT CASE

- 0.4 -

0.2 -

)

0 l-l 0

-. 20 -

40 -

= 00 '-

80-100 120 140-CORE ELEVATION. IN0HES J'

- B.4 -

lRev. 1 11/90 I

3

I ;, -

FIGURE B 3 LOCA LIMITS STUDY-'- UPDATED 9.7 FOOT CASE-MASS FLUX DURING BLOWDOWN AT PEAK POWER LOCATION l

160 1

.. j l

120 -

i 80 -

2A/G AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 40 -

~

t

\\

0

-)

g '

.t

.so _

120 -

160 0

4 8

12 16 20 24 28 TIME, S FIGURE B-4 LOCA. LIMITS STUDY - UPDATED 9,7 FOOT CASE

. CLADDING TEMPERATURES 2000 -

..... ~.,.....,,,,,,,

g.lge.-nuw<.v.--,---- ~~ le 1600--

s y

~..., _ _ _

}

f

.= n

~

/

2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0-W l

800 RUPTURE' LOCATION-NODE 15

~

PCT LOCATION-NODE 14

""" ~~.""-

(:

ADJACENT GRID SPAN-NODE 12 PEAK POWER LOCATION-NODE 17 0

0 200 400 600 TIME. S

- B.5 -

Rev..1

'l 11/90

,; 3 FIGURE-B 5 LOCA UMITS STUDY UPDATED 9.7 FOOT CASE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AT PCT LOCATION i

4 2NG AT PD WITH Cd = 1.0 h

i NODE 14 50 d

, y memnwmm b

0 M

TIME, S FIGURE B 6 LOCA LIMITS STUDY - UPDATED 9.7 FOOT CASE LOCAL-OXIDATION 10 8-

~

6-2NG AT PO WITH Cd = 1.0 o

2-J 0

2 4

8 h

10 12 CORE ELEVATION, FEET

- B.6 Rev. I 11/90