ML20095C113
| ML20095C113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1992 |
| From: | Hoang H, Sozzi G GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20095C083 | List: |
| References | |
| GE-NE-187-62-11, GE-NE-187-62-1191-R1, NUDOCS 9204230272 | |
| Download: ML20095C113 (17) | |
Text
_. . . .- . -.
9 O
CENuclostEnergy
$!$,'ylM,( OE.NE.I87 62.I19i DRF A00 05011 January 1992 Revision I EQUIP %1ENT OLT 0F. SERVICE IN Tile INCREASED CORE FLOW DOMAIN FOR LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 H. X Hoang Approsed by: [v v
( *' OJL. Soza Manager Plant Performance Engineering i.
(
(
L
\
9204230272 DR 920414 ADOCK 05000373 PDR
GE NE.187 621191
. IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING l
- CONTEbrTS OF Tills REPORT PLEASE READ CAREFULLY l
\s he only undertakings of the General Electric Company (GE) respecting information in this document are contained in the contract between the customer and OE, as identified in the purchase order for this report and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as i changing the contract. De use of this information by anycne other than the customer or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, a not authorized; and with respect to any unauthorized use, OE makes no representation or warranty, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information contained in this document.
t 6
t i
(
n .- .. . _-- . . _ . - - . - _ - . . . _ - - _ _ . . . - _ - _ _ . . - . - . .
GEWE.187 621191 TABLE OF CONTENTS Plit
SUMMARY
S.!
1.0 I?URODUCTION 11 1
2.0 SAFETY EVALUAllONS 21 2.1 Anticipated Operational Occurrences Enluation 21 i
2.2 Accident Evaluations 25 2.3 Thermal Hydtaulic Stability Evaluation 25
3.0 CONCLUSION
31 ~
( ,
4.0 REFERENCES
41
(
(
11 t.
l '
l
_ _ - _ _ ~..-__.- ___. _ __ _ _ _ _____ _ _ . _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _.__..__ _._.
GE.NE.187421191 TABLIS Lhh Illk El&s 21 Transient Analysis Results for ISCS at 100P/10$F 24 Turbine Bypass and Recirculation Pump Trip Out of Service 21 MCPR Operating Lirnits for LSCS at 100P/10$F 27 Turbine Bypass eid Recirculation Pump Trip out of Senice i
ILLUSTRATIONS Eigv.ts Ijils Eats
( 2-8 21 Plant Response to Load Rejection with No Bypass, Recirculation Pump Trip in Service,100P/10$F 22 Plant Response to Feedwater Controller Fauure, 29 Turbine Bypass In Senice,100P/10$F 23 Plant Response tolead R jection with No Bypass, 2 10 7
Recirculation PumpTrip out of Senice, 100P/105F Plant Response to Feedwater Controller Failure, 2 11
(, 24 Turbine Bypass Out of Service, J00P/105F
(
\
L
OEWE.187 62.I191
SUMMARY
~
f This report documents the analysea performed for LaSalle County Station (LSCS)
Units 1 and 2 to support continuous operation with either the turbine bypass system or the recirculation pump trip feature out of. service in the increased core flow (ICF) domain (bounded by 105% of rated core Dow).
The analyses documented herein assume a combination of one safety / relief valve out of service and one other piece of equipment (turbine bypass system or recirculation pump trip feature) inoperable. Plant operation in the ICF domain is assumed with normal feedwater temperature. Specific cycle independent operating limit minimum critical power ratio (OLMCPR) are established for each equipment assumed out-of service. Generic CPR criteria for subsequent reload licensing analyses transients verification are specified to assure the cycle. independent characteristics of these equipment out of service OLMCPRs. In addition, verification criteria are also provided for the applicability of these equipment .
/ out of service OLMCPRs in the event of ICF operation coupled with final feedwater temperature reduction (FF%TR) condition.
The analyses of the above mentioned equipment out of service also showed that th1re is no potential impact on other accident evaluations such as loss of coolant accident (LOCA), containment dymmic loadings and thermal hydraulic stability results.
k S1 t
l I
l OE.NE.187 62.I191 1, INTRODUCTION
< Equipment out of. servi:e analyses, including the turbine bypass system and the recirculation pump trip feature, have been previously performed for LSCS units 1 and 2 i operating in the standard operating domain as well as in the Extended Load Line Limit f region (Reference 1). The purpose of the present report is to extend the applicability of
, some equipment out of. service options, namely turbine bypass (TDP) system and recirculation pump trip (RPT) feature, into the ICF domain. Analyses were performed to establish the licensing bases for continued plant operation in the ICF domain with either the TDP or the RPT feature assumed out of. service. For consistency with Reference 1, the
, above single equipment failure (RPT and TBP) is also assumed in conjunction with the failure of one safety / relief valve.
Bounding core wide transient performance is performed to establish the plant operating limits associated with each of the systems assumed out.of service. The transient I analyses assume normal feedwater temperature in the ICF domain. However, criteria are also specified to verify the applicability of the equipment out of service OLMCPR in the event of ICF operation with FF%TR. Other areas of concern, such as LOCA, containm:nt
, dynamic loads and therme.l hydraulic stability are not impacted and are included herein for completeness.
l .
11 l
GE.NE.18M2 I191
- 2. S AFETY EVALUATIONS
, The potential effect of the turbine bypass system out of service (TBP OOS)is to change the vessel pressurization response of the reactor during anticipated operMional occurrences (AOOs) which could conceivably impact the margins or safety limits for plant operatim. The function of the recirculation pump trip (RPT) feature is to reduce the severity of the thermal transients on the luel due to turbine generator trip and load rejection esents by tripping the recirculation pump early in the event. Without the RPT mitigating function. the fuel thermal responses durine postulated AOOs would be adsersely impacted I
21 ANTICIPATED OPERATIONAL OCCU RRENCES EVALUATION 2.1.1 Turbine Bsom Ssstem Out of Setsice To establish cycle independent operating limits for reactor operation with this
( equipment out of service in the ICF domain, a boundmg end of cycle (EOC) exposure condition, based on the cu~ent LSCS I Cycle 5 cor e configuration, is used to develop nuclear input to the transient aralysis model The seserity of the transient results is strongly dependent on the effective aess of the controli ' scram action. For this reason, the EOC bounding exposure condit% assumes a more top peaked axial power distribution than the ,
nominal power shape, thus. ielding a bounding scram response. This conservative analysis approach is consie nt with tie previous equipment out of service analyses (Reference 1).
c For both LSCS units,ine AOOs currently analyzed for MCPR consideration as part of the cycle specific reload licmsing scope are the load rejection with no bypass (LRNBP) and the feedwater controller failure (FWCF) maximum demand events (References 2 and 3).
Since the LRNBP event does not normally account for the turbine bypass system, the g
re ulting OLMCPR is therefore applicable to both turbine bypass system in service and out of service. Howeser, the FWCF maximum demand event usually takes credit for the 21 s
/
l i
GE NE 187 62 Il91
. urhine bypass system; as such, this esent is re analyzed with the bypass system assumed inoperable. .
Based on the tvunding power shape, the LRNDP and FWCF esents are re analyzed at 100cc power /10$% core flow with the equipment in service to sene as base cases. Normal feedwater temperature is assumed for the analyses. The FWCF event is then analyzed with the TBP OOS condition to determine the operating limits assocsated with this equipment inoperable. LSCS Unit I Cycle $ plant operating parameters are assumed for the transient analyses. For consistency with Reference 1. the equipment out of service analyses also assumed ene safety / relief sabe (with the lowest open;ng setpoint) to be inopetable.
The analyses results are pre >ented in Table 21 and time histories of the key parameters are shown in Figures 21 to M Table 2 2 presents the resuhing OLMCPR for the ana!)7ed esents.
Based on the FWCF event with no bypass, the operating !imits associated with TCP OOS are:
134 (Option A) and 132 (Option B).
The OLMCPR result for the FWCF esent with TBP OOS is identical to the similar event analyzed at rated core flow condition (Reference 1). He slight increase in delta CPR normally observed at ICF condition is not aPrarent in this case. ne main reason for this observation is due to the cancelling effect from the lower void coefficient used in the current 4
ICF analyses. De bounding power shape used in Reference I analyses were based on LSCS 2 Cycle 4 core which has one reload of GE9 fuel while the ICF bounding power shape is based on the more recent LSCS 1 Cycle 5 core which has two reloads of GE9, and therefore shows a lower void coefficient.
c For the FWCF with TBP in service, the 0.01 increase observed between the rated core now (Rcference 1) and the ICF condition is mostly due to the numerical round-off process.
t 1
- 'g- p - w-----w g um y- 'y --
rg--
GE NE 10 62119I 212 Recirculation Pumn Trio Out of service The same bounding power shape approach is used for developing a cycle independent OLMCPR associated with RPT OOS The LRNBP esent is analyzed with the RPT feature out of senice This scenario does not violate the criterion of single equipment failure since the LRNBP is normally analyzed with the TBP inoperable, as l l pt eviously stated.
Based on the LRNBP without RPT esent, th*. operating limits associated with ;
137 (Cption A) and 1.33 (Option B)
For the LRNBP events with and without EOC.RPT as shown in Table 2 2. the delta l CPR valuet are identical to the same events nreviously analyzec' for rated core flow he FWCF with TBP OOS result, the slight increase in conditions (Reference 1). Simi!r '
i delta CPR normally obsened at ICF condition is not apparent in both LRNBP cases, rnd again, the main reason is due to the cancelling effect from the lower void coefficient used in the ICF anaipes bases.
For completeness, the FWCF esent is also analyzed with TBP system operable and
.VT OOS. The results show ' hat the transient responses are similar to the FWCF with TBP OOS event previously analyzed. Therefore, the: LRNBP event remains the limiting event for RPT-OOS consideration.
2,13 Criteria for Cvele indeoendent Limits De above operating limits developed for both the TBP OOS and the RPT OOS options in the ICF domain are valid for all future cycles at LSCS _ Units 1 and 2 loading GE fuel through GE10 design provided that for the standard reload licensing bases at ICF condition, 23 )
s l
,-,,-.,.,,m ,..~,.-,,.~m-,-e...._..m..,......-.,,m., , ,... ._, __...._.._m._..._..._.__-m... m.-
_.__l l
GE NE 18742 Il91 the LRNBF and turbine trip with no bypass (TTNBP) events result in (t)
OLMCPR values less than 133 for Option A and 1.29 for Option B.
the FWCF event results in an OLMCPR value of less than 1.29 for Option A ;
(2) '
and 1.27 for Option D.
2.1.4 faiterla for ICF with FF%TR Condition The above equipment vn cL:crvice OLMCPRs were developed based on ICF operation with normal feedwain amperature. This section addresses the condition when L
l
! ICF operation is coupled with reduced feedwuet temperature (equivalent up to 1000F feedwater temperature decrease at rated conditions).
Operation with ICF and FFWTR (ICF/FFWTR) would further increase the core inlet subcoolir g and educe the void fraction, thus yielding a higher delta CPR requirement for the FWCF event than for the same event analyzed with ICF and normal feedwater i
- (-.
. temperature. Since FWCF is the limiting event for the TBP OOS, adjustment may be needed to the cycle independent OLMCPR limit, as shown in Section 2.1.1 above,if the plant is operating at the ICF/FFWTR condition. Transient analyses at ICF with normal feedwater temperature and ICF/FF%TR are normally performed as part of the LSCS cycle specific reload licensing analyses. If the cycle specific analysis for the FWCF event with ICF/FFWTR results in an OLMCPR value less than the values specified in Section 2.1J (i.e.,1.29 for Option A and 1.27 for Option B), no further penalty is necusary. ~If the cycle specific event yields OLMCPR values greater than those specified in Section 2.13, then the deb CPR between the two events must be added to the TDP-OOS limits rpecified in Section 2.1.1.
Beside the above subcooling increase effect, operation with ICF/FFWTR also decreases the vessel steam ficw generation rate and consequently, reduces the vessel pressurization rate during AOOs such as 1TNBP and LRNBP. Therefore, the delta CPR I requirement for these events would be less severe than for those analyzed with normal feedwater temperature. As such, the OLMCPR for the RPT OOS option based on the l
1 I
2-4 u- _ _ _ ___ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
GE NE 187 621191 l
l l LRNBP event, as shown in Section 2.1.2 above, are bounding for application in the l
ICF/FF%TR condition. However, there is a possibility that the limiting event for RF1.OOS l
will change from the LRNBP to the FWCF event. His condition might occur if the delta CPR referred to in the abose paragraph is 0.02 or greater. His increase would bring the Option B OLMCPR fo' FWCF event with RPT OOS (pre >ently set at 132 similar to the FWCF with TBP OOS) to 134 or greater, and thus e.xceeding the '.RNDP with RPT-OOS ;
OLMCPR value of 133.
l 2.2 ACCIDENTS EVALUATIONS i
Loittffpolant Amidrnt Anabli) ;
2.2.1 i
t ne TBP system and the RPT feature are not assumed in the 13CS LOCA analyses.
Herefore, these equipment failures do not have any impact on the calculated peak clad temperature and linear heat generation rates for LSCS Unit I and 2.
l [ 2.2.2 Cg.ntainment LOCA Load.1 l
\
Likewise, since the calculated break flow rate during a postulated LOCA is not affected by either the TBP.OOS or RPT OOS, the containment dynamic loadings are also not impacted by these equipment assumed out of service in the ICF domain 23 TilEPJ,iAL liYDRAULIC STABILITY EVALUATION The failure of either the TBP system or the RPT feature has no impact on the therr.a! hvdraube stability evaluation as previously documented in Reference 1.
i 25 1
+.-----..+.-.--.-__-.-,_...m_ _ - - - - , - - . _ , - , , - . , - . . .
.,r...-, ,,..,-.e.,m, . -, . . _ ,__, , . - i~.m,---.,v,.- , ~ v. -m,.-c.,, , ..m .
GEWE.187 621191 Table 21 ,
TRANSIENT ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR LSCS AT 100P/165F TURBINE BYPASS AND RECIRCULATION PUMP TRIP OUT OF SERVICE i s
Peak Peak Peak Surfac.s Steam Peak Neutron ticat Line Ve.nel ,
Power / Pren, Fiat Press.
Transient Figure Flow f DIxtiption NumbsIfdDE), Flux [G NBR) (4 initiajl__fp}irl fosig) ACPB b 577.7 121.8 1150 1180 0.21 LRNBP 21 100/105
610.1 127.2 1148 1179 0 23
( FWCF 2-4 100/105 w/o TBP _
.. G NBR = % nuclear boiler rated
- b. LRNBP = 1.oad rejection with bypass failure.
- c. FWCF = Feedwater controller failure to maximum demand.
- d. RPT = Recirculation Pump Trip
- c. TBP = Turbine Bypan
(
- f. Delta critical power ratio, uncorrected for ODYN Option A and Option B t
s 26 I
i i
i t '
OE hT 187421191
~
m%~ '
ii3F9g i L _. .
7L, .
e
. _e .
g ..
.. C
. . . 1 Ll..
tid (rt:Ms) t w (u::Ms)
, i ',, ' et'.;"
![; . i,j m7 a937) ;
- m dh,n,n a
. . . ,; 3- ' ' ' " "
tr :: '. . __ ;
e E
./ O VA ' l' '
,f I L'}
L
... % .4 ..
-t iI( (SEDME) ff( ( m )
Figure 2 2 Plant Response to Feedwater Controller Failure Turbine Byptu !n Service,100P/105F t
2-9
l' OE NE.I87 62.I191 l
IfiYust""" .
$Idl $ -
{~ M, x ~
l %
N. n .. 7A -
t
.: 3. ..-4 .: : .. .: :4.
I tid (m:Ks) ten (K M )
i l
l
, , ,e .n.nn i \, ,
,y,,, n 1
, m 55 ,% _ _ .
s / \1 .. El',4" 4m
\
. A .
w
).
/
e u
.. r ~ ls
.... u . .. m u ., ..
( tiv (mm) tim (u=>
Figure 2 3 Plant Response to Load Rejection with No Bypass l Recirculation Pump Trip out of Senice, iOOP/105F L
2 10 l
i
- + . . ~
- .. . _ - _ _ . _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ = . _ _ - ~ _ _ _ - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ .
OEWE 187 621191
.4 h
I
\. ea 7
&i ?
._, - g14- - - y I
I ms ms ea 5 - CN* O N 50$^ 0
' 's e ee s. u e se tid (stext) tid (ze:xn) i O.9Jtt) t vi
(.
1;gt'gMi
. b (~ u ,,
} b.M"tivityg Cu"
' b
' ' ' 2 2 ,,. :, : , _ _! .: C. ,
e E
m ., ,s ' Q k, E, -
h
': : .. to u . ..
g tid (Ecocs) tid (supos)
Figure 2 4 Plant Response to Feedwater Controuer Failure i
Turbine Bypass Out of-Service,100P/10$F 4
2-11 1
i OE NE.I87 62.I191
- 3. CONCLUSION .
The safety evaluations performed for the LSCS Units 1 and 2 have demonstrated ,
that safe plant operation is justified with either the TBP system or the RPT feature assumed
' wt of service. Bounding cycle. independent operating limits associated with each equipment out of service were developed, along with criteria for subsequent fuel cycles verifications.
The safety evaluations also reviewed and confirmed that there is no impact on other accident conditions (such as LOCA or containment dynamic loadings) as well as no impact on the thermaj. hydraulic stability consideration.
t
(
i :
(
I
(
\
31
(
.-. . . . . . - ~ ~ . . .- , - - , . - - . . . - _ . . . . . .-. -. - . - . . . . . _ . . .,.-.- _ - - -
GE NE.187 621191
- 4. REFERENCES
- 1. ' Extended Operating Domain and Equipment Out of Service for LaSalje County Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2', General Electric Company (NEDC 31455. Revision 2), March 1990 2- ' Supplemental Reload Licensir.x lubmittal for LaSalle County Station Unit 1, Reload 4 Cycle 5', General Electric Company (23A6525), September 1990.
- 3. ' Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for LaSalle County Station Unit 2, Reload 3 Cycle 4*, General Electric Comp .ny (23A5973), December 1989.
(
(
\
l 4
I l t 41 1
l l-
. . - _ - . -- _ - - . .- - - - _ . _-. ..