ML20106A648

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Errata & Addenda Sheet 13,replacing Pages v/vi,3-2,4-3, 4-15 & 4-16 to, LOCA Anaysis Rept for Dresden Units 2 & 3 & Quad Cities 1 & 2 Nuclear Power Stations
ML20106A648
Person / Time
Site: Dresden, Quad Cities, 05000000
Issue date: 01/31/1985
From:
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20106A548 List:
References
NEDO-24146A-ERR, NEDO-24146A-ERR-13, NUDOCS 8502110318
Download: ML20106A648 (7)


Text

,

NUCLEAR ENERGY SUSINESS OPERATIONS O CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95125 GENER AL $ ELECTRIC APPLICABLE TO:

NEDO-24146A

"""""- ERRATA And ADDENDA T. I. E. NO. 79NED273 SHEET TITLE LOCA ANALYSIS REPORT FOR 13 NO.

DRESDEN UNITS 2, 3 AND QUAD January 1985 DATE CITIES 1.2 NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS nom Cata// copies of th app # cable ISSUE DATE APRIL 1979 publication as specified below.

REFERENCES PMn AoYApw7L NE Icennte AN ADDITIONS) '

l. Page v/vi Replace with new page v/vi
2. Page 3-2 Replace with new page 3-2
3. Page 4-3 Replace with new page 4-3
4. Page 4-15/4-16 Replace with new pages 4-15 and 4-16 (Change brackets in right-hand margin indicate areas where report has been revised.)

( .

i l .

e l

l PAGE I Of I l

B502110318 850204

PDR ADOCK 05000265 P PDR

E

  • NEDO- N l LIST OF TABLES Table Title Pm Significant Input Parameters to the loss-of-Coolant Accident 3-1 1:

Summary of Break Spectrum Results 4-5 2'

LOCA Analysis Pigure Summary - Non-Lead Plant 4-6 3

MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (7D212 - No Gad.) 4-7 4A

MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (7D212L) 4-7

.4B MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (7D230) 4-8 4C:

- MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (EEIC - Pu) 4-8 4D HAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (8D250) 4-9 4E ,

HAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (8D262) 4-9 4P MAPLHGR Versus~ Average Planar Exposure (8DRB265L) 4-10 4G

. MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (Barrier LTA) 4-10 4H 41 _ MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (P8DRB282) 4-11 4J - MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (P8DRB265H/BP8DRB265H) 4-11 4K _ MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (P8DRB239) 4-12 MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar, Exposure (P8DGB284)* 4-12 4L MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (P8DGB263L)* _ 4-13 4M MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (P8DGB263H)* 4-13 4N'

' MAP 1HGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (P8DGB298)* 4-14 40' 4P MAPIJtGR Versus Average Planar _ Exposure (P8DRB265L) 4-14'

-and (P8DGB265L)*

MAPLHCR Versus Average Planar Exposure (BP8DRB283H) 4-15 4Q .

MAPLHGR Versus' Average Planar Exposure (BP8DRB282) 4-16 4R .

(

  • Barrier fuel for the Barrier Fuel Demonstration Program-v/vi

NED0-24146A Table 1 (Continued)

Fuel Parameters: (Continued)

Peak Technical Initial Specification Design Minimum Linear Heat Axial Critical Fuel Bundle Generation Rate Peaking Power Fuel Type Geometry (kW/ft) Factor Ratio L. P8DGB284**- 8x8 13.4 1.57 1.2 M. P8DGB2G3L** 8x8 13.4 1.57 1.2 N. P8DGB263H** 8x8 13.4 1.57 1.2

0. P8DGB298*
  • 8x8 13.4 1.57 1.2 P. P8DRB265L/ 8x8 13.4 1.57 1.2 P8DGB265L**

8x8 13.4 1.57 1.2 EQ. 'BP8DRB283H R.. BP8DRB282 8x8 13.4 1.57 1.2

    • Barrier fuel for the Barrier Fuel Demonstration Program O

/ .

f

)

t 3-2 k w, -

NEDO-24146A 4

4.5 RESULTS OF THE CHASTE ANALYSIS  :

This code is used, with suitable inputs from the other codes, to calculate the fuel cladding heatup rate, peak cladding temperature, peak local cladding oxidation, and core-wide metal-water reaction for large breaks. The detailed fuel mod 31 in-CHASTE considers transient gap conductance, clad swelling and rupture, and metal-water reaction. The empirical core spray heat transfer and channel wetting correlations are built into CHASTE, which solves the transient heat transfer equations for the entire LOCA transient at a single axial plane in a single fuel assembly. Iterative applications of CHASTE determine the maximum permissible planar power where required to satisfy the requirements of 10CFR50.46 acceptance criteria.

The CHASTE results presented are:

e Peak Cladding iemperature versus time e Peak Cladding Temperature versus Break Area e Peak Cladding Temperature and Peak Local Oxidation versus Planar Average Exposure for the most limiting break size e Maximum Average Planar Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) versus Planar Average Exposure for the most limiting break size A summary of the analytical results is given in Table-2. Table 3 lists the figures provided for this analysis. The MAPLHGR values for each fuel type for D2,3/QC1,2 are' presented in Tables 4A through 4R. ,,,

i-

.4.6 METHODS p

'In the following sections, it will be useful to refer to the methods .used to analyze DBA, large breaks, and small breaks. For jet-pump reactors, these are defined as follows:

,, ,a y

a. DBA Methods. LAMB / SCAT / SAFE /DBA-REFLOOD/ CHASTE. Break size: JDBA.

1 f

  • i 4-3 1' e' i -

t

NEDO *.4146A Table 4Q MAPLHGR VERSUS AVERAGE PLANAR EXPOSURE i PLANT: Quad Cities 1,2 FUEL TYPE: BP8DRB283H Average Planar Exposure MAPLHGR PCT 0xidation (mwd /t) (kW/ft) ('F) Fraction 200 11.2 2128 0.028 1,000 11.2 2121 0.028 5,000 11.7 2157 0.030 ,

10,000 12.0 2192 0.033 15,000 12.0 2199 0.033 20,000 11.9 2195 0.033 25,000 11.4 2132 ,

0.027 30,000 10.8 2051 0.038 35,000 10.3 1956 0.031 40,000 9.6 1841 0.009 45,000 9.0 1764 0.007 NOTE: Credit taken for the effects of pre-preasurization of the fuelsrods.

i 4-15 v.,-.

NEDO-24146A

~

Table 4R MAPLHGR VERSUS AVERAGE PLANAR EXPOSURE PLANT: Quad Citfe', 1,2 FUEL TYPE: BP8DRB282 Average Planar Exposure MAPLHCR PCT 0xidation (mwd /t) (kW/ft) ('F) Fraction 200 11.2 2131 0.029 1,000 11.2 2128 0.028 5,000 11.8 2178 0.032 10,000 12.0 2188 0.032 15,000 12.1 2199 0.033

-20,000 11.9 2192 0.033 25,000 11.4 2129 0.027 30,000 10.8 2047 0,038 35,000 10.3 1957 0.031 40,000 9.6 1840 0.009 45,000 8.9 1761 0.007 -

~

4 h

r; "

p

.J.

4 ATTAC K NT'4 L NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION

^

.. ' Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed Technical

, Specification amendment and determined t% t it does not represent a significant hazards consideration. Based on the criteria for defining a x ,significant hazards cosideration established in 10 CFR 50.92(c), operation of 7 ' Quad Cities 1 Unit 2 in accordance with the proposed amendments will not:

" 1) l involve a'significant increase in the probability or consequences of

.an accident previously evaluated because:

(, -a). the amendments involve restrictions on the reactor power

- distribution during normal operation which of itself cannot

-initiate an accident and therefore does not increase the probability.of an accident and b) these restrictions on power distribution are based on a reanalysis or re-evaluation of accident in accordance with WC

", , -approved methods and are specifically provided to ensure that

~

the consequences of accidents (LOCA) remain within the. existing.

accident criteria established for Quad Cities.

4.

2) fcreate':the possibility'of_ a' new or different kind of accident from

<any accident previously evaluated for the same rease on (1)a Jabove

~and , , ,

i3). .

involve a significant' reduction in the'. margin ofl safety since the:

amendments are specifically intended to ensure that'the 10 CFR 50.46 5

3 ECCS criteria continue to bel protected during operation.

. : Inl addition,'the Commission ~itself- has det- :tned that fuel which is

" . '.p

.inotsignificantlydifferentfromapreviouslyacces design conforms with the' s-. O  ? standards:of 10 CFR 50.92 as indicated by example (1. on :page :14870, .

IVolume 48, NLaber:67 of-the Federal Register,. dated Apri L983.-

Q lt ,

In consideration of. the above, Commonwealth' Edisu.f expects that EC T  : approval of.these amendments should not be predicted on satisfactory resolution

~

- , ,..of public. comments or intervention as provided by 10 CFR 50.91(a)(4).

a .

-S

,,-s.s'~ k E'  %

~

f.

m -

_ _ y. ,

s,

'M .

e"Cs

  1. -