ML20106A648
| 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 LOCA ANALYSIS REPORT FOR TITLE 13 NO.
DRESDEN UNITS 2, 3 AND QUAD January 1985 DATE CITIES 1.2 NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS nom Cata// copies of th app # cable APRIL 1979 publication as specified below.
ISSUE DATE 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 I Of I l
PAGE B502110318 850204 PDR ADOCK 05000265 P
E NEDO-N l
LIST OF TABLES Table Title Pm 1:
Significant Input Parameters to the loss-of-Coolant Accident 3-1 4-5 2'
Summary of Break Spectrum Results 4-6 3
LOCA Analysis Pigure Summary - Non-Lead Plant 4A MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (7D212 - No Gad.)
4-7 4-7
.4B
- MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (7D212L) 4-8 4C:
MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (7D230) 4-8 4D
- MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (EEIC - Pu) 4E HAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (8D250) 4-9 4P HAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (8D262) 4-9 4-10 4G MAPLHGR Versus~ Average Planar Exposure (8DRB265L) 4H
. MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (Barrier LTA) 4-10 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 4L MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar, Exposure (P8DGB284)*
4-12 4M MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (P8DGB263L)* _
4-13 4N' MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (P8DGB263H)*
4-13 4-14 40'
' MAP 1HGR Versus Average Planar Exposure (P8DGB298)*
4P MAPIJtGR Versus Average Planar _ Exposure (P8DRB265L) 4-14'
-and (P8DGB265L)*
4Q MAPLHCR Versus Average Planar Exposure (BP8DRB283H) 4-15 4R MAPLHGR Versus' Average Planar Exposure (BP8DRB282) 4-16
(
- 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**
EQ. 'BP8DRB283H 8x8 13.4 1.57 1.2 R..
BP8DRB282 8x8 13.4 1.57 1.2
- Barrier fuel for the Barrier Fuel Demonstration Program O
/
f
)
t 3-2 k
w,
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:
Peak Cladding iemperature versus time e
e Peak Cladding Temperature versus Break Area Peak Cladding Temperature and Peak Local Oxidation versus Planar e
Average Exposure for the most limiting break size Maximum Average Planar Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) versus Planar e
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.,-.
~
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
,significant hazards cosideration established in 10 CFR 50.92(c), operation of x
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
ECCS criteria continue to bel protected during operation.
3
. : Inl addition,'the Commission ~itself-has det-
- tned that fuel which is
.inotsignificantlydifferentfromapreviouslyacces design conforms with the'
.p 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'
~
m -
- y.,
f.
s, e"Cs
'M
.