Text

Rev 2 to Calculation M-734, RHR & Core Spray Pump Suction Strainer Debris Head Loss NPSH Evaluation
	ML20202B508
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	01/08/1999
From:	Harizi P, Oconnor G, Wetherell N; BOSTON EDISON CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20202B485	List: ML20202B482; ML20202B498; ML20202B508;
References
	M-734, M-734-R02, M-734-R2, NUDOCS 9901290099
	Download: ML20202B508 (118)
	v • d • e

. _ -. _ . . _ -. . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - -

<j BECo Calculation M-734, Rev. 2 l

I i !

t isi:

f l

i l

l l

a i.'

9901290099 990121293 PDR ADOCK O P -

CALCULATION COVER SHEET PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION SHEET 1 OF 6,$,_ Total including Attachments l 4

CALC.NO. M-734 REV. 2 Responsible Discipline: SR E RTYPE

]

Me.:hanical Engineering NSR O B4.01 i Tale: RHR and Core Spray Pump Suction Strainer !

Debris Head Loss NPSH Evaluation Vendor Calculation Yes O DWine Dept. Marager: NEAL herurgrLL No E Approval /af: f jj Data: Safety Design Basis Yes B AV12 & ll7 ?? NO O independent Reviewer: Georoe E. O'Connor /s/ . e- Statement Attached S, or (for vendor cales) BECo Acceptance Reviewer i By: Philip D. Harizi Ch'k'd: Patrick J. Doody Page(s) Date: Date:

l

h. Ol*05~fi y'pf !

V

/ l A. Statement of Problem Attachment 1 = l Pgs B.Summaryof Results C. Method of Solution D. Input Data and Assumptions E. Calculations / Analyses F. References G. List of Attachments TotalPages Sections A to G = 51 Pgs TotalPages Attachments 1 = I Pgs PDC Yes O PDC No. IF this calculation involves a design change, Required Ne B THEN the implementing PDC must be ind'cated.

Safety Yes B SE No. IF this calculation affects the Safety Design Basis for Evaluation No O Attachthe Preliminary a system or affects station procedures with respect to a Required Evaluation Checklist safety function, THEN a Safety Evaluation is required.

CALcULATON SHEET gg PREPARED BY: ?DM.

CALC.# u 734 CHECKED BY: 49

/

REV. 2 DATE 05JAN 99 SHEET 1 OF 82 A. Statement of Problem It is necessary to evaluate the head loss due to LOCA-generated debris on the suction strainers for the RHR and Core Spray Pumps to detennine whether there is adequate NPSH margin to accommodate the additional debris head loss. The quantity of debris is a conservatively postulated value for the bounding Design Basis Loss of Coolant Accident (DB A-LOCA) that displaces and transports the largest volume of fiberglass pipe insulation and other debris materials. The postulated debris head loss is evaluated by comparison with the minimum available NPSH margin for the RHR and Core Spray Pumps. The NPSH margin is determined based on the bounding Suppression Pool temperature profile for the DBA-LOCA. New FSAR containment pressure limits to be imposed on NPSH evaluations are verified based on the minimum containment pressure required to provide adequate NPSH with the debris head loss.

This calculation is based on meeting the following principal criteria:

1. The containment pressure available to provide adequate NPSH will be derived from:

a. The thermal equilibrium calculation method for NPSH analysis described in the FSAR and reviewed by the NRC under License Amendment 173.

b. The initial conditions, inputs, and assumptions described in the FSAR and evaluated by the NRC under License Amendment 173.

c. The DBA-LOCA accident response scenario described in the FSAR and evaluated ,

by the NRC under License Amendment 173. l

2. The analysis shall specifically identify the magnitude and duration of containment ,

positive pressure (overpressure) required to provide adequate NPSH. Updated FSAR l containment pressure limits will be verified for submittal to the NRC as part of a new l license amendment.

3. To ensure that the RHR and Core Spray Pumps can perform the initial recovery of l core cooling without cavitation, the original design specifications for the RHR and Core Spray systems required that at maximum flow (runout), the available NPSH l shall be based on 130*F water with containment at atmospheric pressure. The l Suppression Pool will reach approximately 130'F during the initial reflood following a DBA-LOCA blowdown of the reactor vessel into primary containment. The analysis shall verify the pumps can operate under these conditions without cavitation.

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

---q

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PD4 CALC. # M 734 CHECKED BY: # ,

fv- l REV. 2 DATE 05 JAN-99 I

{

SHEET 8 OF (2. )

l l

i

4. For clean suction strainer conditions and for conditions degraded by the maximum j postulated debris, the analysis shall determine the following for the DBA-LOCA:

a. Available Containment Pressure

b. Available NPSH l

c. NPSH Margin

d. Minimum required containment pressure to provide adequate NPSH.

5. The analysis based on the DBA-LOCA shall also ensure that adequate NPSH is available for all potential design basis events for which the PJIR and Core Spray Pumps are required to operate and perform the core and/or containment cooling functions.

CA1.CULATON SHEET s g PREPARED BY: jb4 CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: M 7--

REV. 2 DATE 05-JAN-99 SHEET 4 OF 61 B. Summary of Results The minimum contamment pressure available following the DBA-LOCA with a 75'F SSW beat sink, based on the thermal equilibrium method from Calculation M-662, is given in Table 1. The minimum available NPSH margin for the limiting Core Spray Pump is given in Table 2 and is greater than the postulated suction strainer head loss due to LOCA-generated debris from [Ref.1) and included in the table. The minimum available margin for the RHR Pumps is also greater than the postulated debris head loss following a DBA-LOCA and is less limiting than the Core Spray Pumps as shown in Table 3. These NPSH calculations are based on the Suppression Pool temperature profile for the DBA-LOCA with a 75'F SSW heat sink, which has a peak pool temperature of 182.3'F. In addition, NPSH was evaluated separately at the design peak Suppression Pool temperature of 185'F and the available margin for the RHR and Core Spray Pumps is greater than the DBA-LOCA debris head loss.

The strainer head loss is based on the application of the debris volume following a DBA-LOCA applied to one strainer with two RHR and one Core Spray Pump operating at maximum flow for the first two hours followed by one RHR and one Core Spray Pump operating at maximum flow for the remainder. The DBA-LOCA recirculation system line break is the most limiting design basis accident with respect to both debris generation and available NPSH margin. There is adequate NPSH margin to accommodate the bounding debris loading without affecting pump performance for either the RHR or Core Spray Pumps. Only one loop of RHR and Core Spray is assumed to function for the DBA-LOCA. If both loops are operating, the conditions are more favorable both for debris accumulation and Suppression Pool temperature and therefore the NPSH margin will be greater.

These NPSH analyses were performed using a methodology that has been previously reviewed by the NRC as pan of License Amendment 173 [Ref. 6). The Safety Evaluation Repon (SER) related to Amendment 173 (dated July 3,1997) describes the results from a review of BECo Calculation M-662, which is the Pilgrim design basis calculation for available NPSH to the RHR and Core Spray Pumps. The thermal equilibrium method used in Calculation M-662 for calculating containment pressure and NPSH available is consistent with the original Pilgrim FSAR. The current M-662 [Ref. 4) was updated to be based on the new Suppression Pool temperature profile from the contairument analysis using two-sigma decay heat [Ref. 7] per the requirements of Amendment 173. This calculation evaluates the effect of the new suction strainer debris head loss on RHR and Core Spray Pump NPSH.

~

CALCULATM)N SHEET g PREPARED BY: _PD#

(

CALC.# M.734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE 05 JAN-09 SHEET 6 OF U.

The RHR and Core Spray Pumps are not degraded by the postulated suction strainer debris head loss since there is adequate NPSH margin available to accommodate the head loss without causing pump cavitation when the calculated containment pressure is used for the NPSH analysis. The new debris head loss nonetheless constituted a Nonconforming Condition because the allowable containment pressure that may be assumed for NPSH analysis per FSAR Section 14.5.3.1.3 did not provide sufficient NPSH margin. The FSAR containment pressure limits that were approved by Amendment 173 were not sufficient to accommodate the updated debris head loss. The basis for the previous limits was an earlier debris analysis that postulated a lower strainer head loss and, consequently, a lesser amount of containment pressure was required. This calculation provides the updated debris analysis and containment pressure requirements.

The containment pressure that may be assumed in pump NPSH evaluations will be limited in the FSAR to the following pressure profile:

Time After Accident Containment Pressure (sec) (hour) (psig) (psia)

O to 1,200 0.00 to 0.33 0.0 14.7 1,200 to 1,800 0.33 to 0.50 1.9 16.6 1,800 to 3,600 0.50 to 1.0 3.0 17.7 3,600 to 57,600 1.0 to 16.0 5.0 19.7 57,600 to 108,000 16.0 to 30.0 2.5 17.2 108,000 to 172,800 30.0 to 48.0 1.0 15.7 172,800 to 864,000 48.0 to 240.0 0.0 14.7 This containment pressure profile is completely enveloped by the containment pressure calculated using the conservative equilibrium method to determine the available NPSH.

Containment pressure within these limits provides adequate NPSH margin to accommutate the suction strainer debris head loss for the RHR and Core Spray Pumps following a DBA.LOCA.

The first time step for which positive containment pressure (overpressure) is assumed is at 1200 seconds. This ensures that the RHR Pumps in the LPCI mode and a Core Spray Pump can perform the initial recovery of core cooling without requiring any amount of containment pressurization during the initial 1200 seconds for the bounding DBA-LOCA.

This is consistent with the analysis reviewed for Amendment 173.

CALCULATION SHEET g PREPARED BY: AbM CALC.# M 784 CHECKED BY: A/,Q -

REV. 2 DATE 05JAN09 swEEr s or c1 The design basis loss-of coolant-accident (DBA-LOCA) is the reactor recirculation

, system line break, which results in the most rapid heatup of the Suppression Pool to its highest peak temperature. The DBA-LOCA case provides a bounding analysis with respect to NPSH. The containment heatup analysis that produces the Suppression Pool temperature profile was performed using the GE computer code SHEX for primary containment thermodynamic analysis (Ref. 7]. The containment modeling and assumptions were set to maximize the pool temperature. The DB A-LOCA pool profile is based on a singe loop of containment heat removal, the highest ultimate heat sink temperature (75'F), ANSI /ANS 5.1 two-sigma decay heat, and initial conditions for power level, eg.i4ing history, containment conditions, flow rates, and heat exchanger performance that maximize pool temperature.

The results from the DBA-LOCA NPSH analysis are illustrated in attached Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows the containment pressure available and the pressure required to provide adequate NPSH to the RHR and Core Spray Pumps with a clean strainer and with the new debris head loss included. The new FSAR containment pressure limits are also ;

shown on Figure 1. The Core Spray Pumps are more limiting for NPSH than the RHR Pumps. Figure 2 shows, in units of feet, the corresponding total NPSH margin available with a clean strainer, the postulated debris head loss, and the margin available for the most limiting ECCS pump based on the new FSAR containment pressure limits. The total NPSH margin depicted in the figures is based on the conservative lower bounding containment pressure existing due to thermal equilibrium principles for an enclosed volume (primary containment) as described in FSAR Section 14.5.3.1.3.

As illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, the new FSAR containment pressure limits provide sufficient NPSH margin to accommodate the new debris head loss. The new FSAR limits are less than the available containment pressure determined using the thennal equilibrium method. These NPSH calculations are based on the Suppression Pool temperature profile for the DBA-LOCA with a 75'F SSW beat sink, which has a peak pool temperature of i 182.3*F. In addition, NPSH was evaluated at the design peak Suppression Pool temperature of 185'F and the 5.0 psig limit provides sufficient margin for the RHR and Core Spray Pumps with the DBA-LOCA debris head loss at that point in time.

It is also shown on Figure 2 that the FSAR limits will not, at all points in time, provide the additional two feet of NPSH margin that is allocated to pump inservice testing (IST)

} as described in Calculation M-662. The additional two feet of NPSH margin is provided j at the peak pool temperature for the bounding DBA-LOCA and at most other points.

l There is a two foot or greater NPSH margin between the debris head loss profile and the i

margin provided by the containment pressure as determined in Calculation M-662 using the FSAR thermal equilibrium method up to and through the peak pool temperature and

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PW4 CALC. # 88 734 CHECKED BY: AM /

REV. 2 DATE 05 JAN 99 SHEET 7 OF 62 at all times during the first 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months after a DBA-LOCA. The 48 hour5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months period of time is significant because containment positive pressure (overpressure) is credited for providing

adequate NPSH up to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months . The NPSH margin based on the new FSAR pressure l limits is intended to envelop the bounding DBA-LOCA strainer debris head loss. The two foot head loss allocated to IST represents additional margin provided to account for

, uncertainty and it is considered sufficient to demonstrate that this unused margin exists l during the period of time that containment pressure greater than atmospheric is credited.

As indicated below, the suction strainer head loss caused by debris is less than or equal to the available NPSH margin provided by the new FSAR pressure limits. Also, during the period of time in the accident response that any pressure greater than atmospheric is I

credited (i.e.,48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months ), the available margin based on the equilibrium method is at least two feet more than the available margin provided by the new FSAR pressure limits.

FSAR Debris FSAR Equilibrium Method Head & Pressure Limit & NPSHMargin Loss NPSHMargin 2ft Above Debris ,

First 48 Hours The DBA LOCA includes an immediate blowdown of the reactor vessel to primary j containment resulting in the most rapid initial heatup of the Suppression Pool to approximately 130'F. The subsequent transfer of heat from the reactor core to the pool is also maximized by the continuous core flooding provided by the operation of one Core Spray and two RHR Pumps at maximum flow for the first two hours. In addition, the DBA LOCA provides the maximum generation, transport, and accumulation of debris on the suction strainer. The assumption of three ECCS pumps operating for two hours on a common suction strainer provides the maximum debris accumulation and head loss on the strainer. That is, the accumulation of debris from the pool is essentially maximized at the two hour point and no further debris is present to accumulate on the strainer. At this point in time, it is assumed that one RHR Pump is shut off and a mode of LPCI with Heat Rejection with one RHR Pump begins and is maintained for the duration of the recovery.

As shown on Figure 2, the debris head loss drops from the peak of 11.5 feet to 6.2 feet at the two hour cutoff of the second RHR Pump due to the decrease in the total flow through l the common strainer. The debris head loss remains less than 6.4 feet until the peak pool l temperature has passed and the long term cooldown begins. The steady increase in debris L head loss that begins after 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months is due solely to the effect of viscosity increasing as the l pool temperature drops.

l l

I i

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PDlf CALC. # R4 734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE _05.JAN-99 SHEET 8 OF 62.

At approximately 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months (3 days) after the DBA-LOCA, the containment equilibrium pressure decreases to atmospheric pressure and the NPSH margin is at its minimum point for the entire event. The pool temperature is 132'F at the point of minimum NPSH margin and atmospheric pressure. At the minimum point, there is 10.1 feet of total available NPSH margin and 8.8 feet of debris head loss. From the minimum point onward, the NPSH margin and debris head loss increase in equal proportion such that adequate NPSH remains out to the final 240 hour0.00278 days 0.0667 hours 3.968254e-4 weeks 9.132e-5 months (10 day) point at which the pool temperature is 112*F. Based on the data up to the 240 hour0.00278 days 0.0667 hours 3.968254e-4 weeks 9.132e-5 months point, this trend will continue as the pool cools down to lower temperatures. After the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months minimum margin point, the containment remains at atmospheric pressure and it is shown that there is adequate NPSH for all temperatures below 132*F at atmospheric pressure (i.e., without overpressure).

Calculation M-662 determined the minimum NPSH Available (NPSHA) to the RHR and Core Spray Pumps for the bounding DBA-LOCA. The equilibrium method produced more limiting results than a complex computerized analysis that used detailed models of the heat transfer mechanisms in primary containment. The DBA-LOCA and steam line break accidents were evaluated for NPSH using a computerized model of prunary containment done with the GE computer code SHEX [Ref. 7]. The NPSH analysis was part of the updated containment heatup analysis using two-sigma decay heat per Amendment 173. The effects from containment leakage and passive heat sinks in the drywell, wetwell, and Suppression Pool are incorporated into the SHEX model for NPSH evaluations. The mechanistic analysis for the steam line break cases was done using containment spray as the means of transferring heat from the steam atmosphere to the Suppression Pool with only makeup water added to the reactor vessel by a Core Spray .

Pump. For the steam line breaks, the reactor core continuously produces steam that I pressurizes the containment and the containment spray flow from the RHR Pump is required to transfer heat to the Suppression Pool. Durmg the long-term recirculation period for the DBA-LOCA, the water exiting the reactor vessel is always subcooled (no steam production) since the vessel is continuously flooded by both the Core Spray and RHR Pumps. Transfer of heat by subcooled liquid at relatively high flow rates, as compared to steam line break events, flushes the heat energy from the primary system and results in a higher pool temperature at lower containment pressure.

i The DBA-LOCA analysis is based on maximizing Suppression Pool temperature while the containment atmosphere is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium with the pool. This provides the most limiting case for NPSH analysis when conservative assumptions are i

used for the operation of the ECCS pumps. If the assumptions are changed to maximize cooling, lower the heat sink temperature, and/or minimize decay heat, this analysis remains controlling for NPSH. Lower Suppression Pool temperatures are preferable and

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: $544 .

CALC.# b8 734 CHECKED BY: A REV. 2 DATE 05 JAN 99 SHEET i OF $2 constitute a less challenging condition for accident recovery. However, there are operational considerations that may arise at lower pool temperatures. If one Core Spray and two RHR Pumps are allowed to operate up to the two hour point at water temperatures lower than the 176.8'F given in Table 2, the peak debris head loss will be higher than 11.5 feet due solely to the increase in viscosity. As given in Calculation M-662, at 130*F with atmospheric pressure in containment (i.e., no overpressure), there is 10.3 feet of NPSH margin for the limiting Core Spray Pump. The debris head loss may exceed 10.3 feet with 3 ECCS Pumps running at low water temperatures. However, by shutting down one RHR Pump, the head loss decreases as shown on Figure 2 at the two hour point. At pool temperatures of 130'F and below, Figures 1 and 2 show that there is adequate NPSH assuming only atmospheric pressure in containment with one RHR and Core Spray Pump operating. Therefore, containment pressurization is only a necessary consideration for pump NPSH when the Suppression Pool is above 130*F.

The FSAR analysis method does not require that containment pressure be greater than the minimum value that is inherently established by the containment being an enclosed airspace in thermal equilibrium with the Suppression Pool. These assumptions are applicable for the DBA-LOCA and all other events and transients that do not include the use of containment spray for containment cooling. The use of containment sprays, when l appropriate for steam line breaks, has been evaluated mechanistically, as described above, and shown to be less limiting for NPSH analysis than the DBA-LOCA. Other reactor shutdown and isolation events produce less debris, lower pool temperatures, and utilize single RHR Pump operation in torus cooling rather than the LPCI with heat rejection mode.

There are potential sets of conditions that, although they are more favorable than the severe conditions of the DBA-LOCA, may require that containment spray be controlled in response to operator observations. A small steam line break with maximized cooling and a low temperature heat sink can result in the containment atmosphere being reduced to a temperature below that of the Suppression Pool by the continuous use of containment spray. Under these conditions, the available NPSH margin will be reduced below the equilibrium value for the given pool temperature. However, if pump cavitation should

. occur, operators will recognize the condition and stop the use of spray thus restoring adequate NPSH. These low temperature cases are less challenging, in terms of accident mitigation, than the cases analyzed with maximized Suppression Pool temperature. It is concluded that the NPSH analysis as performed for the DBA-LOCA is conservative and bounding. The basis for this conclusion is that the NPSH margin for the DBA-LOCA is restricted by the limitations that the severe conditions impose on plant operators. That is, there are no options available except to maximize cooling with the remaining single loop of containment heat removal under the DBA-LOCA conditions. For other cases with

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: Pbl4 CALC.#

M 734 CHECKED BY: #

t i REV. 2 DATE 05 JAN-99 /V SHEET 10 OF 61 lower pool temperatures, the NPSH margin can be improved by operator actions that would be allowed under the circumstances.

l The methodology, assumptions, and results presented in this calculation have been submitted to the NRC as part of a license amendment application. The new containment ,

pressure limits for NPSH analysis that are verified in this calculation will be incorporated !

into the FSAR after NRC approval. 'Ihe cover sheet for this calculation identifies the Safety Evaluation that documents the NRC approval of these methods, assumptions, and results.

l l

i i

l I

I l

l t

i i

l

CALCULATION SHEET pm, PREPARED BY: 'PDil CALC. # M 734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET ll OF 62 C. Method of Solution The postulated LOCA debris head loss was taken from the [Ref.1) analysis that was prepared in accordance with NUREG/CR-6224 [Ref. 2) in response to NRC Bulletin 96-03 [Ref. 3]. The head loss is compared with the available margin for LOCA debris based on the available containment pressure detennined by the methodology presented in Calc M-662 [Ref. 4]. The thermal equilibrium methodology in Calc M-662, the containment initial conditions assumed, and the DBA-LOCA accident response scenario '

were evaluated by the NRC in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for License Amendment 173 [Ref. 6]. Lower allowable values for containment pressure were approved in License Amendment 173 based on the previous debris analysis that postulated much lower strainer head losses. !

A number of variables determine the margin for NPSH available to the pumps.

Principally they are:

l Suppression pool water level, temperature, and density.

Wetwell pressure.

Vapor Pressure of the suppression pool water.

Pump suction line head loss which is principally a function of geometry and flowrate (includes the clean suction strainer head loss).

Available containment pressure is a function of the Suppression Pool temperature profile, the initial mass of air or nitrogen, and the containment leakage rate. The Calc M-662 methodology is based on 1e assumption that the Drywell and Wetwell atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with the Suppression Pool resulting in containment pressurization as the pool temperature increases. The containment pressure is determined in this calculation using the same methodology as Cale M-662 (see Section E).

The Suppression Pool temperature profile used is from the contairunent heatup analysis for the DBA-LOCA [Ref. 7], which is the largest recirculation line break event. The DBA-LOCA produces the Suppression Pool temperature profile used in Calc M-662 and in this analysis to determine the most limiting NPSH requirements. The NPSH calculations are performed using the Suppression Pool temperature profile extending out 240 hours0.00278 days 0.0667 hours 3.968254e-4 weeks 9.132e-5 months (10 days) after the accident. During the 240 houc period, the pool profile peaks (at about 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months ) and then cools down continuously foi the remaining time. The long-tenn containment pressure peak corresponds to the pool tenperature peak, after which it steadily decreases until the pressure equals atmospheric. The point of minimum NPSH margin will always occur at the point where the containmen: pressure has decreased to atmospheric.

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: M i

CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 jv- i SHEET /2 OF 67. )

l !

I In addition to the NPSH calculation using the Suppression Pool temperature profile, the I i

NPSH is also evaluated at the design peak pool temperature of 185'F. Although the peak Suppression Pool temperature calculated for any event is 182.3'F from the DB A-LOCA, the current design peak pool temperature is defmed as 185'F.

The suction line and clean strainer head losses were determined in Calc M-662. The containment initial mass of air or nitrogen is the same value as is used in Calc M-662, which was derived in Calc M-748 [Ref. 5].

l 4

1 :

l CALcuLATIDN SHEET .

g g, PREPARED BY: PDn I CALC. # as.7s4 CHECKED BY: 8 '

REY. 2 DATE soDEC98 /

fv SHEET 13 OF (2 l

1 D. Inout Data and Assumptions j

1. The RHR and Core Spray Pumps are operating at their maximum runout flow rates.

2. The greatest head loss occurs when 2 R.HR Pumps and 1 Core Spray Pump are operating on one suction strainer.

The following maximum pump flow rates will be used, consistent with Calc M-662:

RHR = 5,600 gpm x2 = 11,200 gpm Core Spray = 4,400 gpm x1 = 4,400 gpm

=

Total Flow = 15,600 gpm

3. At two hours after the start of the accident, a transition is made from the two pump LPCI with Heat Rejection mode to the one pump LPCI with Heat Rejection mode to maximize the heat removal function of the RHR system. Rated heat removal from the containment is obtained using the LPCI with Heat Rejection mode by removal of one RHR pump from IECI service and closure of thr. RHR heat exchanter bypass valve while maintaining i maximum LPCIinjection flow from the single RHR pump. One pump LPCI with Heat Rejection mode is assumed to run continuously throughout the remainder of the accident response. These operator actLons are consistent with the FSAR description of the DBA-LOCA analysis [Ref. 8] and be applicable operating procedures [Ref.10].

4. The Suppression Pool temperature profile is for the DBA-LOCA with a 75'F heat sink and the updated two-sigma (20) decay heat (Ref. 7] consistent with Calc M-662.

5. Suction line losses (Hst) and elevation head (Hz) are from Calc M-662,

6. 'Ihe initial mass of dry air or nitrogen in containment is 16,315 lbm per [Ref. 5].

7. For the containment pressure (Pc) calculations, free drywell volume (Vd) is 147,000 ft' i and the free air space volume in the werwell (Vs) is 124,500 ft'. j

8. The strainer head loss (ne to LOCA debris is from Attachment B to [Ref.1). The debris ;

head loss profile versu 4 time was expanded by interpolation to match the time steps used in the NPSH calculati'm.

9. The minimum availa'sle margin (NPSHM) that can be assumed for LOCA debris is

- determined by the D: sign Basis LOCA Suppression Pool profile with a 75'F heat sink and at the 185'F design peak Suppression Pool temperature.

, . . - , -.a - -, . - , -..

CALCULATIDN SHEET g PREPARED BY: PD$

CALC.# al734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 30 DEC 98 /v-8HEET ff OF 62 E. Calculations / Analyses Definition of Terms Hz Bevation ofsmpression pool water surface above the pump centerline, ft Hsl Suction linelosses,ft Hdebris Suction strainer debris head loss,ft LT Reference mass leakage rate at reference pressure Pr, Ibm /sec Mt initial mass ofdry air inside the Drywell and Wetwell, ihm Mt* Mass ofdry air remaining inside the Drywelland Wetwell after leakage, Ibm m,ga Mass ofairksitrogen in mixture, Ibm mieek Mass leakage ratefrom containment, ihm/sec mwater Mass ofwater vaporin mixture, Ibm NPSHA Net positive suction head available, feet NPSHM Net positive suction head margin, feet

( NPSHR Net positive suction head required, feet Pc Primary containmentpressure, psia PcAllow Primary containment pressure as limited by the FSARfor NPSH analysis, psia PcDBA Primary containment pressure required to provide NPSHR w/LOCA debris, psia Pc Reg'd Primary containmentpressure required to provide NPSHR w/ clean strainer, psia Pgas Pressure ofgas in a mixture ofgas and water vapor, psia PT Reference pressurefor mass leakage rate br, 45Psig or 59.7 psia Pvp Saturation vaporpressure, psia R orRgas Specsfc gas constantfor air / nitrogen, 53.3ft-lbf/lbm- R Rwater Specupc gas constantfor water vapor, 85.8fr lbf/lbm *R AT lxngth oftime step, sec Tp Temperature ofsuppression pool water, *F Vs Volume offree airspace in Wetwell,ft' Vd Free Drywell volume,ft' p Density ofwaterin pool, Ibyt'

$ Relative Humidity to 1fumidity Ratio, Ibm water /lbm dry air

CAL N M SHEET f%N Brd% PREF ARED BY:

CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: M ;

REY. 2 DATE 30 DEC-98 SHEET /I OF M The following methods and equations were extracted from Calc M-662 [Ref. 4). The equations below are referenced by n unber in the attached tables.

The initial mass of dry air or nitrogen in containment is 16,315 lbm per Calc M-662 and M-748 [Ref. 5].

Equation I calculates containment leakage mass flow as a function of pressure relative to an assumed leakage rate of 5% mass per day at the test pressure of 45 psig:

0.5 f #

14.7 1-t Pc j Eq. I mg = LT f %2 14.7 1-

_ (PrJ _

Only a portion of the mass leaked from the containment is gas since the mixture leaking from containment is a mixture of water vapor and noncondensible gas. The humidity ratio (m) can be used to determine the amount of dry gas contained in the vapor / gas mixture.

This ratio is derived from the ideal gas law since the water vapor and gas are homogeneously mixed in the containment volume (Drywell and Wetwell) and both the water vapor and gas are at the suppression pool temperature. Also, the containment atmosphere is assumed to be at 100% relative humidity (saturated) after the event has been initiated. Equation 2 which provides the humidity ratio based on the ratio of gas and water vapor pressure is derived from the ideal gas law as follows:

y,mwater , Egas P,p S3.3 P,p mgas ? water ? gas 858 ? gas P#

G = 0.622 P, ga Pga, = Pc- P,p P#

Eq.2 0 = 0.622 Pc - P,p

l CALCULATMW SHEET g PREPARED BY: PDM CALC.# M 734 CHECKED BY: A/F REV. 3 DATE SNEC te SHEET /6 OF 62 Since "nwe" from Equation I is a gas and water vapor mixture where:

mga,g = mwater + mgas ater and G=

mgas Solving for mwater:

mwater = m mgas Substituting s m for m in the first equation yields:

gas water Mleak " O Mgas SM gas Solving for mg ,, yields:

Eq.3 mir ga m , = (m +ak1)

Equation 3 pmvides the mass of noncondensible gas in a mixture with total mass equal to mu.eand a humidity ratio at The noncondensible gas remaining in containment at any time after the containment isolates is the initial mass minus the mass of noncondensible gas that has leaked.

The remaining mass (Mt*) is calculated by the following formula:

Eq.4' l Mt* = Mt -1(m +eak1) (dt)

Equation 5 is used to calculate the containment pressure at any time as the sum of the partial pressure of the remaining noncondensible g' as and the vapor pressure corresponding to the suppression pool temperature.

2 Eq. s Pc = Mt

R Tp ' ft + Pvp Vd + Vs <144in2 ,

l <

CALCULATION SHEET gg PREPARED BY: PDS CALC.# A4-734 CHECKED BY REV. 2 DATE 30 DEC 98 SHEET 17 OF $2.

NPSHA is defined by the following terms:

( in 2 144 Eq.6 NPSHA = (Pc- Pvp) ' # ' + Hz - Hsl P

The tenn (Pc-Pip) represents the net pressure above the vapor pressure provided by the noncondensible gas inside containment. Therefore:

Eq. 7 Pgas = (Pc- Pvp)

NPSHA is calculated as follows, where Pgas is converted to feet of water:

f in 2%

144 Eq. s NPSHA = Pgas ' # ' + Hz - Hsl P

The containment pressure required to provide adequate NPSH is derived using Equation 6 by letting NPSHA equal NPSHR and solving for the contamment pressure Pc. When NPSHA equals NPSHR the containment pressure is by definition equal to the required containment pressure Pc Reg'd.

Eq.9 A Pc Reg'd = Pvp + (NPSHR - Hz + Hsl) ,

1445 "2 ,

\ $)

The NPSH margin is the difference between the containment pressure that is available and the containment pressure required.

in 21 f

144 Eq.lo NPSHM =(Pc- Pc Reg'd) ' #'

P or NPSHM = NPSHA - NPSHR The updated debris analysis [Ref.1] determined the maximum volume of shredded fiberglass, sludge, dirt / dust, rust flakes, and paint chips generated from the bounding DBA-LOCA line break inside primary contamment. This debris adds significantly to the RHR and Core Spray suction strainer head loss. The containment pressure required to

l CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: M Ed h CALC.# M 734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE S&DEC98 SHEET /8 OF 62 l

provide adequate NPSH under these conditions is obtained using Equation 9 for Pc Reg'd with the additional strainer debris head loss included.

Eq.I1 Containment pressure required w/LOCA debris head loss included:

A Pc DBA = Pvp + (NPSHR - Hz + Hsl + Hdebris) , ,,

144 L 9)

FSAR limits on the amount of containment pressure that can be assumed in the NPSH analysis are included in Tables 2 and 3. The NPSH margin with containment pressure at these allowable values is calculated using Equation 10 with the allowable pressure substituted for the previously calculated equilibrium pressure.

Eq.I2 NPSH margin at FSAR containment pressure limits:

(

144g ,2h NPSHM =(Pc Allow- Pc Reg'd) ' #

P 1

l

CALCULADDN SHEET g PREPARED BY: PDM CALC.# 84 734 CHECKED BY: dk REY. 2 DATE 30 DEC 08 7 8HEET /9 OF 62 Applying the FSAR limits on containment pressure that can be assumed for NPSH analysis to the design peak pool te+Eww of 1857, only 5.0 PSIG can be used. The NPSH margin for the limiting Core Spray Pump at 1857 pool temperature and 5.0 PSIG is as follows:

Elevation Head Hz = 12.5 ft Suction HeadI.oss Hsi. = 2.38 ft NPSH Required NPSH, = 29 ft Vapor Pressure @ 1857 Pvr = 8.3855 PSIA Density @ 1857 p = 60.456 lbm/ft 3 Allowable Pressure @ 1857 Pc = 5.0 PSIG = 19.7 PSIA f g 23 144 NPSHM = (Pc- Pvp) ' + Hz- Hsl- NPSHR P

. . NPSHM @ 1857 = 8.07 ft The debris head loss during the time period from 2 to 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months after the DBA-LOCA, during which the peak pool temperature occurs, does not exceed 6.4 ft. Therefore, there is adequate NPSH margin at 1857 to accommodate the postulated debris without affecting Core Spray Pump performance.

CALcuum0N SHEET PREPARED BY: Af CALC. # 88-734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 3(H)EC 98 SHEET. 20 OF 62 For the RHR Pump, there is additional NPSH margin because the NPSHa for the RHR Pump is less than for the Core Spray Pump. Using the same methodology, the NPSH margin for the RHR Pump at 185'F pool temperature is as follows:

Elevation Head Hz = 12.5 ft Suctio.t Headloss Nsr. = 3.20 ft NPSH Required NPSN, = 27 ft Vapor Pressure @ 185'F Pvr = 8.3855 PSIA Density @ 185'F p = 60.456 lbm/ft' Allowable Pressure @ l85'F Pc = 5.0 PSIG = 19.7 PSIA

. . NPSHM @ 185'F= 9.25 ft Therefore, there is adequate NPSH margin at 185'F to accommmiate the postulated debris without affecting RHR Pump performance, and the RHR Pump NPSH seguirements are bounded by the Core Spray Pump.

From Table 2, the minimum Total Available NPSH margin for the limiting Core Spray Pumpis:

NPSHM = 10.1 ft @ 132*F @ Pc = 14.7 PSIA @ 72 Hours This minimum NPSH margin is based on a Suppression Pool temperature of 132'F which is the highest pool temperature at which the containment pressure will decrease to O PSIG following a DBA-LOCA with the assumption of equilibrium conditions at the higher pool temperatures earlier in the event. The containment pressure decreases to O PSIG at approxunately 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months after the DBA-LOCA due to the cooldown of the Suppression Pool and the effect from containment leakage. At that point in time (72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months ), the debris head loss is 8.8 ft. Therefore, there is adequate NPSH margin with a Suppression Pool temperature of 132'F and 0 PSIG to accommodate the postulated debris without affecting Core Spray Pump performance. As before, the RHR Pump NPSH requirements are bounded by the Core Spray Pump

CALCULATION SHEET g PREPARED BY: M CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY:

/"

REV. 2 DATE 10-DEC-98 SHEET 2l OF 62.

26 . . ..

190 Based on Suppression Pool I' j

-h

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

Temperature Curve Figure 14.5-17 g 24

~N 180 75'F Seawater Temperature / p Suppression Pool l 170 22

.5 E

/

$[.l \ !

C j/ Margin k g(,0 j tL, Containment Pressure p

E Allowed per FSAR - _h j f

/4 e

/ - -

-- - t ~ __._.

__ ContanwnentPressure {

w/i.eakage 9 5 %/ Day i g

g,

., 18 ' "

150 g S

L

\ / l p s

s m

i t

/

< 3 i40 g ',[-- f [. _

A -- --- -

kl

,u, Containment Pressure /[ l g for CS NPSilR w/Debrisq , j/

/{ Containment Pressure /

120 Il

/--

/

l for CS Clean NPSHR'/

for RIIR Clean NPSliR s

\l_ {\

I 10 j

8 300 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 !

Thne After AccWent (hours) .

t J

NPSH Availability for Core Spray Pump After a DBA-LOCA w/ Debris h

Figure 1 N

i CALCULATION SHEET g PREPARED LY: PDn CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: #

P REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 22 OF 61 -

- Base l on S ression 1 - -- -- -- - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~~~ ~ '~

I

. Temperature Curve Figure 14.5-17 .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -- --

- RHR Pump Margin -- ~~'~

--75*F Seawater Temperature __ _.. Z@ 5%/ Day teskage t

/ lill. l

/{ l ll %jyfQ%

CS Pump Margin !

15 Y

i,P '@ 5%/ Day leakage i

,, /s- _ _ _ -- - - - -

\ yf '

/

' ' ~

l c

j "[ g%._

h g-, #

g V _..

3r T/

. CS Pump _. - ._ _ .-- - - - - -- -~ '

Margin for Debris !

~- - - - _ ___ -- 1 per FSAR Limits _

_} !

1 4, _. _ .__. . ._.- - - - --- -

N x . _ _ _ . ._ __ _. _ . ----.-

t Debris Head Loss

_. _ __ _ _ . _ _ . _ ._ _ _ _ .- -- - - -- - - - - - __ _ _. J l l ,

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 1MO N Time After Accident (hours)

NPSH Margin for RIIR and Core Spray Pumps After a DBA-LOCA w/ Debris Figure 2 l i

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: Pbid

-CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: MO ~

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 27 OF (2.

Mt= 16315 lbm Pr= 59.70 psia Case = 5.00 %/ day Lr = 815.8 lbm/ day ~

Lr = 0.00944 lbm/sec Table 1 - Containment Pressure Available @ 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater Fl4.5-17 Eq. I Eq.2 Eq.3 Eq. 4 Eq. 5 Time Time Tp Tp Pvp mma c) mou AT Mt* Pc (sec) (hour) (*F) ('R) (psia) (Ibm /sec) (n/a) (Ibm /sec) (sec) (Ibm) (psia)

I30.0 590.0 2.223 I6315 15.35 312 0.09 133.7 593.7 2.453 0.00280 0.105 0.00253 312 16314 15.66 557 0.15 139.5 599.5 2.853 0.00335 0.116 0.00301 245 16313 16.19 l

588 0.16 140.6 600.6 2.935 0.00408 0.133 0.00360 31 16313 16.29 619 n-

_ 17 I413 6013 2.988 0.00420 0.137 0.00370 31 16313 16.36 ,

656 118 I42.0 602.0 3.041 0.00428 0.139 0.00375 37 16313 16.43 h

%9 0.27 147.8 607.8 3.521 0.00435 0.141 0.00381 313 16312 17.04 1.199 t 033 151.0 611.0 3.812 0.00492 0.162 0.00424 230 16311 17.40 1,200 033 151.0 611.0 3.812 0.00521 0.175 0.00444 I 16311 17.40 1,281 036 152.1 612.1 3.916 0.00521 0.I75 0.00444 81 16311 17.53 1.594 0.44 1553 615 3 4.235 0.00531 0.179 0.00450 313 16309 17.92 I,799 0.50 157.1 617.1 4.424 0.00557 0.193 0.00467 205 16308 18.14 i 1.800 0.50 157.1 617.1 4.424 0.00571 0.201 0.00476 1 16308 18.14 1,906 0.53 158.0 618.0 4.520 0.00571 0.201 0.00476 106 16308 18.26 2,219 0.62 160.1 620.1 4.753 0.00578 0.205 0.00480 313 16306 I8.54 2,531 0.70 I62.0 622.0 4.972 0.00594 0.2I4 0.00489 313 16305 18.80 2,844 0.79 I63.7 623.7 5.176 0.00607 0.224 0.004 % 313 16303 19.04 3,156 0.88 165.4 625.4 5.387 0.00619 0.232 0.00502 313 16302 19.29 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 1 of 7 !

h

_-------J

cat.CULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PDN CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: 8 REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET __24 OF 61 _

Table 1 - Containment Pressure Available @ 5%/ Day Lenkage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-17 Eq. I Eq.2 Eq. 3 Eq.4 Eq. 5 Time Time Tp Tp Pvp nw to moAs aT Mt* Pc (sec) Omur) ('F) ('R) (psia) (Ihm/sec) (nfa) (thm/sec) (sec) (thm) (psia) 3,469 0.% I66.9 626.9 5.579 0.00631 0.241 0.00508 313 16300 19.5I 3.599 1.00 167.4 627.4 5.644 0.00641 0.249 0.00513 130 16299 19.59 3.600 1.00 167.4 627.4 5.644 0.00644 0.252 0.00514 1 16299 I9.59 3,78I I.05 168.2 628.2 5.749 0.00644 0.252 0.00514 I8I 16298 19.71 4,094 1.14 169.4 629.4 5.912 0.00649 0.256 0.00517 313 16297 19.90 4,406 1.22 170.4 630.4 6.049 0.00656 0.263 0.00520 383 16295 20.05 l 4.719 131 1713 6313 6.175 0.00663 0.269 0.00522 313 16293 20.20 5,031 1.40 172.2 632.2 6303 0.00668 0.274 0.00524 313 16292 2034 5.344 1.48 173.0 633.0 6.420 0.00673 0.279 0.00526 313 16290 20.48 5.656 1.57 173.7 633.7 6.522 0.00678 0.284 0.00528 313 16289 20.59 5,%9 1.66 174.4 634.4 6.626 0.00682 0.288 0.00530 313 16287 20.71 5,999 f.67 174.5 634.5 6.64I 0.00686 0.293 0.00531 30 16287 20.73 6,000 I.67 174.5 634.5 6.641 0.00687 0.293 0.0053I i 16287 20.73 6,281 1.74 175.0 635.0 6.717 0.00687 0.293 0.00531 281 16285 20.82 6,594 1.83 175.7 635.7 6.823 0.00690 0.2 % 0.00532 313 16284 20.94 6.906 1.92 176.2 636.2 6.901 0.00694 0301 0.00533 3I3 16282 21.02 7.157 1.99 176.7 636.7 6.979 0.006 % 0304 0.00534 251 16281 21.1I 7,188 2.00 176.8 636.8 6.995 0.00699 0307 0.00535 31 16280 21.13 7.199 2.00 176.8 636.8 6.995 0.00700 0308 0.00535 Ii 16280 21.13 7,200 2.00 176.8 636.8 6.995 0.00700 0308 0.00535 1 16280 21.13 9,033 2.51 178.8 638.8 7.315 0.00700 0308 0.00535 1,833 16271 21.48 12,498 3.47 181.0 641.0 7.681 0.00710 0321 0.00538 3,465 16252 21.88 15,848 4.40 182.0 642.0 7.850 0.00722 0336 0.00540 3,350 16234 22.06 19,325 537 1823 6423 7.903 0.00726 0344 0.00541 3,477 16215 22.10 22,924 637 182.2 642.2 7.885 0.00727 0346 0.00540 3,599 16196 22.06 26,735 7.43 181.7 641.7 7.799 0.00726 0346 0.00540 3,81I 16175 21.95 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 2 of 7

CALCULATION SHEET

{} PREPARED BY: Phlf CALC. # __ M-734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 27 OF 67.

Table 1 - Containment Pressure Available @ 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-l7 Eq. I Eq. 2 Eq. 3 Eq.4 Eq.5 Time Time Tp Tp Pvp mme o) aT rrus Mt* Pc (sec) (hour) (*F) (*R) (psia) (Ibm /sec) (n/a) (Ibm /sec) (sec) (thm) (psia) 30,495 8.47 181.0 641.0 7.681 0.00723 0.343 0.00539 3,760 16155 21.80 34,328 9.54 180.I 640.1 7.528 0.00719 0338 0.00537 3,834 16134 21.61 38,118 10.59 179.0 639.0 7348 0.00714 0333 0.00536 3,790 16114 2139 42,01I II.67 177.7 637.7 7.137 0.00708 0326 3,892 0.00534 16093 2I.I3 45,9I8 12.75 1763 6363 6.9I6 0.00700 0317 0.00531 3,907 16072 20.86 49,869 13.85 174.8 634.8 6.687 0.00691 0309 0.00528 3.952 16051 20.58 53,881 14.97 173 3 6333 6.463 0.00682 0.299 4,012 0.00525 16030 2030 57.599 16.00 I71.9 63I.9 6.260 0.00672 0.290 0.00521 3,7I8 160II 20.05 57,600 16.00 171.9 631.9 6.260 0.00663 0.282 0.00517 1 16011 20.05 57,880 16.08 171.8 631.8 6.246 0.00663 0.282 0.00517 280 16010 20.04 61,998 17.22 1703 6303 6.035 0.00662 0.282 0.00516 4,118 15988 19.77 66.179 18.38 168.7 628.7 5.817 0.00652 0.273 0.005I2 4,181 15 % 7 19.50 70,369 19.55 167.2 627.2 5.618 0.00640 0.264 0.00506 4,I91 15946 19.25 74.594 20.72 I65.7 625.7 5.425 0.00679 0.256 0.00501 4,225 15925 19.01 78,9I5 21.92 164.2 624.2 5.237 0.006I8 0.248 0.00495 4.321 15903 18.77 83,272 23.13 162.8 622.8 5.068 0.00606 0.241 0.00488 4357 15882 18.55 86399 24.00 161.8 621.8 4.949 0.00594 0.234 0.00482 3,127 15867 18.40 86,400 24.00 161.8 621.8 4.949 0.00586 0.229 0.00477 l 15867 18.40 87,590 2433 161.4 621.4 4.903 0.00586 0.229 I,190 0.00477 15861 1834 91,959 25.54 160.0 620.0 4.741 0.00582 0.227 4,369 0.00475 15840 18.13 96,315 26.75 158.7 618.7 4.597 0.00570 4,355 0.220 0.00467 15820 17.94 l 100,723 27.98 157.5 617.5 4.466 4,409 0.00558 0.214 0.00460 15800 17.77 105,128 29.20 1563 6l63 4.339 4,405 0.00547 0.209 0.00453 15780 17.60 107.999 30.00 155.5 615.5 4.256 0.00535 0.204 0.00445 2,871 15767 17.49 108.000 30.00 155.5 615.5 4.256 0.00528 0.200 0.00440 1 15767 17.49 109.611 30.45 155.1 615.1 4.215 0.00528 0.200 0.00440 1,611 15760 17.43 I

RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 3 of 7 I

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PDl(

CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET U OF @

Table 1 - Containment Pressure Available @ 5%/ Day Leakage Ra'e - 75'F Seawater F14.5-17 Eq. I Eq.2 Eq.3 Eq. 4 Eq.5 Time Time Tp Tp P9 mm ut el me,AS 3I MI' IC (sec) (hour) (*F) ('R) (psia) (thm/sec) (n/a) (thm/sec) (sec) (Ibm) (psia)

I14,124 31.70 154.0 614.0 4.103 0.00523 0.198 0.00437 4,512 15740 17.28 118,662 32.% 153.0 613.0 4.005 0.00512 0.194 0.00429 4,539 15Y21 17.14 123.3 % 34.25 151.9 6l1.9 3.897 0.00501 0.190 0.00421 4,644 1570I 17.00 127,955 35.54 151.0 611.0 3.812 0.00489 0.185 0.00413 4,649 15682 16.88 132,637 36.84 150.0 610.0 3.718 0.00478 0.I82 0.00405 4,682 15663 16.74 137,298 38.14 149.0 609.0 3.628 0.00466 0.178 0.003 % 4,662 15645 16.62 141,980 39.44 148.1 608.1 3.547 0.00454 0.174 0.00387 4,682 15627 16.50 143,999 40.00 147.7 607.7 3.512 0.00443 0.170 0.00378 2,019 15619 16.45 144.000 40.00 147.7 607.7 3.512 0.00437 0.169 0.00374 I 156I9 I6.45 146,749 40.76 147.1 607.I 3.460 0.00437 0.169 0.00374 2,749 15609 1638 151,545 42.10 146.2 606.2 3383 0.00430 0.167 0.00368 4,796 15591 16.27 156,333 43.43 145.3 6053 3307 0.00417 0.163 0.00359 4,789 15574 16.16 ,

161,157 44.77 144.5 604.5 3.241 0.00405 0.160 0.00349 4,823 15557 16.06 165,970 46.10 143.7 603.7 3.176 0.00393 0.157 0.00339 4.813 15541 15.97 170,814 47.45 142.9 602.9 3.112 0.00380 0.154 0.00329 4,844 15525 15.87 172,799 4R.00 142.6 602.6 3.089 0.00367 0.152 0.00319 1,985 15518 15.84 172.800 48.00 142.6 602.6 3.089 0.00363 0.151 0.00315 I 15518 15.84 I76,400 49.00 142.2 602.2 3.054 0.00363 0.151 0.00315 3,600 15507 15.78 180,000 50.00 141.7 601.7 3.020 0.00355 0.149 0.00309 3,600 154 % 15.73 183.600 51.00 1413 601.3 2.987 0.00347 0.148 0.00302 3,600 15485 15.68 187,200 52.00 140.8 600.8 2.954 0.00339 0.146 0.00296 3,600 15474 15.63 190,800 53.00 140.4 600.4 2.921 0.00331 0.145 0.00289 3,600 15464 15.58 194,400 54.00 140.0 600.0 2.887 0.00323 0.144 0.00282 3,600 15454 15.53 198,000 55.00 139.5 599.5 2.856 0.00314 0.142 0.00275 3,600 15444 15.48 201,600 56.00 139.1 599.1 2.824 0.00305 0.141 0.00267 3,600 15434 15.43 205,200 57.00 138.7 598.7 2.792 0.002 % 0.139 0.00260 3,600 15425 1538 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 4 of 7

CALCULATION SHEET g PREPARED BY: M CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: , M REV, 2 DATE 30.DEC-98 SHEET 77 OF 62.

Table 1 - Containment Pressure Available @ 5%/ Day Lenkage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-I7 Eq. I Eq.2 Eq.3 Eq. 4 Eq. 5 Time Time Tp Tp Pvp mmx 0) nus AT Mt* Pc (sec) (hour) (*F) ('R) (psia) (thm/sec) (n/s) (Ibm /sec) (sec) (Ibm) (psis) 208,800 38.00 138.2 598.2 2.760 0.00287 0.138 0.00252 3,600 15416 15.33 212,400 59.00 137.8 597.8 2.729 0.00277 0.137 0.00244 3,600 15407 15.29 216,000 60.00 137.3 597.3 2.699 0.00267 0.135 0.00235 3,600 15399 15.24 219,600 61.00 I36.9 596.9 2.668 0.00257 0.134 0.00226 3,600 15390 15.19 223,200 62.00 136.5 5%.5 2.638 0.00246 0.133 0.00217 3,600 15383 15.15 226,800 63.00 136.0 5%.0 2.607 0.00235 0.131 0.00208 3,600 15375 15.10 230,400 64.00 135.6 595.6 2.578 0.00223 0.130 0.00197 3,600 15368 15.06 234,000 65.00 135.2 595.2 2.549 0.002II 0.129 0.00187 3,600 15361 15.01 237,600 66.00 134.7 594.7 2.520 0.00198 0.127 0.00176 3,600 15355 14.97 241,200 67.00 134.3 594.3 2.491 0.00184 0.126 0.00163 3,600 15349 14.93 244,800 68.00 133.8 593.8 2.462 0.00169 0.125 0.00150 3,600 15344 14.88 248,400 69.00 133.4 593.4 2.434 0.00153 0.123 0.00136 3,600 15339 14.84 252,000 70.00 133.0 593.0 2.407 0.00135 0.122 0.00120 3,600 15334 14.80 255,600 71.00 132.5 592.5 2.379 0.001I5 0.12I 0.00102 3,600 1533I I4.76 259.200 72.00 132.1 592.1 2.351 0.00090 0.119 0.00080 3,600 15328 14.72 262.800 73.00 131.9 591.9 2.337 0.00055 0.I18 0.00049 3,600 15326 14.70 266,400 74.00 I3I.7 591.7 2.324 0.00024 0.118 0.00021 3,600 15325 14.70 270,000 75.00 131.5 591.5 2.311 0.00000 0.117 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 273,600 76.00 131.2 591.2 2.298 0.00000 0.116 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 277,200 77.00 131.0 591.0 2.285 0.00000 0.115 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 280.800 78.00 I30.8 590.8 2.272 0.00000 0.114 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 284,400 79.00 130.6 590.6 2.258 0.00000 0.II4 0.00000 3,600 15325 I4.70 288,000 80.00 130.4 590.4 2.245 0.00000 0.113 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 291,600 81.00 130.2 590.2 2.232 0.00000 0.112 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 295,200 82.00 129.9 589.9 2.219 0.00000 0.1 II 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 298,800 83.00 129.7 589.7 2.207 0.00000 0.11I 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 5of 7

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PbH CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: gF fW REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 28 OF 62. .

Table 1 - Containment Pressure Available @ 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-17 Eq. I Eq.2 Eq.3 Eq.4 Eq. 5 Time Time Tp Tp Pvp mim to mou 4T Mt* Pc (sec) (hour) (*F) (*R) (psia) (Ibm /sec) (n/a) (thm/sec) (sec) (Ibm) (psia) 302,400 84.00 129.5 589.5 2.194 0.00000 0.110 0.00000 3,600 15325 I4.70 306,000 85.00 129.3 589.3 2.181 0.00000 0.109 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 309.600 86.00 129.1 589.1 2.169 0.00000 0.108 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 313.200 87.00 128.9 588.9 2.156 0.00000 0.I08 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 316,800 88.00 128.6 588.6 2.144 0.00000 0.107 0.00000 3,600 15325 I4.70 320,400 89.00 128.4 588.4 2.131 0.00000 0.106 0.00000 3,600 15325 I4.70 324.000 90.00 128.2 588.2 2.118 0.00000 0.105 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 327,600 0.00000 0.105 0.00000 3,600 14.70 91.00 128.0 588.0 2.106 3,600 15325 f

33I,200 92.00 127.8 587.8 2.094 0.00000 0.104 0.00000 15325 14.70 334,800 93.00 127.6 587.6 2.082 0.00000 0.103 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 338.400 94.00 127.3 587.3 2.070 0.00000 0.103 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 342,000 95.00 127.1 587.1 2.058 0.00000 0.102 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 345,600 96.00 126.9 586.9 2.(M6 0.00000 0.101 0.00000 3,600 15325 I4.70 349,200 97.00 126.7 586.7 2.036 0.00000 0.101 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 352.800 98.00 126.6 586.6 2.027 0.00000 0.100 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 356,400 99.00 126.4 586.4 2.017 0.00000 0.099 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 360,000 100.00 126.2 586.2 2.008 0.00000 0.099 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 363,600 101.00 126.0 586.0 1.998 0.00000 0.098 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 367,200 102.00 125.9 585.9 1.989 0.00000 0.098 0.00000 3.600 15325 14.70 l

370.800 103.00 125.7 585.7 1.980 0.00000 0.097 OLu60 3,600 15325 I4.70 -

374,400 104.00 125.5 585.5 1.971 0.00000 0.097 0 00000 3,600 15325 14.70 378,000 105.00 125.4 585.4 1.962 0.00000 0.096 (

_;00000 3,600 15325 14.70 381,600 106.00 125.2 585.2 1.953 0.00000 0.096 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 385,200 107.00 125.0 585.0 1.944 0.00000 0.095 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 388,800 108.00 124.9 584.9 1.935 0.00000 0.095 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 392,400 109.00 124.7 584.7 1.926 0.00000 0.094 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 6 of 7 i

L . _ _ _ _

CALCUt.ATION SHEET PREPARED BY: _

pt)W CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: M y-REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 29 OF 62 Table 1 - Containment Pressure Available @ 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75*F Seawater -

FI4.5-17 Eq. I Eq. 2 Eq. 3 Eq.4 Eq. 5 Eme Time Tp Tp Pvp mirn 0) maas AT Mt* Pc (sec) (hour) (*F) (*R) (psia) (Ibm /sec) (nfa) (thm/sec) (sec) (Ibm) (psia) 396,000 I10.00 124.5 584.5 1.917 0.00000 0.094 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 399,600 1II.00 124.3 584.3 f.908 0.00000 0.093 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 403,200 112.00 124.2 584.2 1.899 0.00000 0.093 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 406.800 113.00 124.0 584.0 1.890 0.00000 0.092 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 410,400 114.00 123.8 583.8 1.881 0.00000 0.092 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 414,000 115.00 123.7 583.7 I.873 0.00000 0.091 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 417,600 1I6.00 123.5 583.5 1.864 0.00000 0.091 0.00000 3,600 15325 I4.70 421,200 117.00 123.3 583.3 1.855 0.00000 0.090 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 424.800 118.00 123.1 583.1 I.847 0.00000 0.090 0.00000 3,600 15325 I4.70 428,400 119.00 123.0 583.0 1.838 0.00000 0.089 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 432,000 120.00 122.8 582.8 1.830 0.00000 0.089 0.00000 3,600 15325 14.70 518,400 144.00 120.2 580.2 1.702 0.00000 0.088 0.00000 86,400 15325 14.70 604,800 168.00 118.2 578.2 1.610 0.00000 0.081 0.00000 86,400 15325 14.70 691,200 192.00 116.2 576.2 1.522 0.00000 0.077 0.00000 86,400 15325 14.70 777,600 216.00 114.3 5 74.3 1.442 0.00000 0.072 0.00000 86,400 15325 14.70 864,000 240.00 112.3 572.3 1.362 0.00000 0.068 0.00000 86,400 15325 14.70 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 7 of 7

CALCULATION SHEET gg PREPARED BY: PDQ CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: 8 REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 30 or 62 Table 2 Core Spray Pump wkh 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater

' F14.5-17 Imokup Lookup Eq. 5 Eq. 7 Eq. 8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total '

Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) (*F) (Ibm /lf) (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 312 0.09 133.7 61.49 2.453 15.66 30.92 12.50 238 41.0 10.51 12.0 !

557 0.15 139.5 6138 2.853 16.19 31.28 12.50 2.38 41.4 10.90 12.4 I 588 0.16 140.6 6136 2.935 16.29 3I34 12.50 238 41.5 10.98 12.5 619 0.17 1413 61.35 2.988 1636 3139 12.50 238 41.5 11.03 12.5 656 0.18 142.0 6134 3.04l 16.43 31.43 12.50 238 41.6 11.08 12.6

%9 0.27 147.8 61.23 3.52I 17.04 31.79 12.50 238 41.9 11.55 12.9 1.199 033 151.0 61.17 3.812 17.40 31.98 12.50 238 42.1 11.83 13.1 1,200 033 151.0 61.17 3.812 17.40 31.98 12.50 238 42.1 11.83 13.1 1.281 036 152.1 61.15 3.916 17.53 32.05 12.50 238 42.2 11.93 13.2 1,594 0.44 155.3 61.09 4.235 17.92 32.25 12.50 2.38 42.4 12.24 13.4 !

1.799 0.50 157.1 61.05 4.424 18.14 3236 12.50 2.38 42.5 12.43 13.5 l 1,H00 0.50 157.I 61.05 4.424 18.14 3236 12.50 2.38 42.5 12.43 13.5 1,906 0.53 158.0 61.04 4.520 18.26 32.42 12.50 238 42.5 12.52 13.5 l

2,219 0.62 I60.1 60.99 4.753 I8.54 32.55 12.50 238 42.7 12.75 13.7 2,531 0.70 162.0 60.95 4.972 18.80 32.66 12.50 238 42.8 12.% 13.8 2,844 0.79 163.7 60.92 5.176 19.04 32.77 12.50 238 42.9 13.16 13.9 j 3,156 0.88 165.4 60.88 5387 19.29 32.87 12.50 238 43.0 1337 14.0 l 3,469 0.% 166.9 60.85 5.579 19.51 32.97 12.50 2.38 43.I 13.56 I4.1 3.599 IJX) 167.4 60.84 5.644 19.59 33.00 12.50 238 43.1 13.62 14.1 3.600 l A)0 167.4 60.84 5.644 19.59 33.00 12.50 238 43.1 13.62 14.1 3,781 1.05 168.2 60.82 5.749 19.71 33.05 12.50 2.38 43.2 13.72 14.2 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 Rie = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 1 of 16

CALCUl ATION SHEET ( g PREPARED BY: PDN CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: 8 (U ~

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 3/ OF (1 Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75*F Seawater F14.5-17 Lookup Lookup Eq. 5 Eq.7 Eq.8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Cican Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (Ibm /R') (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Platted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 4,094 1.14 I69.4 60.80 5.912 19.90 33.12 12.50 238 43.2 13.88 14.2 4,406 1.22 170.4 60.78 6.049 20.05 33.18 12.50 238 433 14.02 14 3 4,719 131 1713 60.76 6.175 20.20 33.24 12.50 238 43.4 14.14 14.4 5,031 1.40 172.2 60.74 6303 2034 33.29 12.50 2.38 43.4 I4.27 14.4 5,344 1.48 173.0 60.72 6.420 20.48 3334 12.50 238 43.5 1438 14.5 5,656 I.57 173.7 60.71 6.322 20.59 3338 12.50 238 43.5 14.48 14.5 5,969 I.66 174.4 60.69 6.626 20.71 33.42 12.50 238 43.5 14.58 I4.5 5,999 1.67 174.5 60.69 6.641 20.73 33.43 12.50 2.38 43.5 14.60 14.5 6,000 1.67 174.5 60.69 6.641 20.73 33.43 12.50 2.38 43.5 14.60 14.5 6,281 1.74 175.0 60.68 6.717 20.82 33.46 12.50 2.38 43.6 14.67 14.6 6,594 1.83 175.7 60.66 6.823 20.94 33.50 12.50 238 43.6 14.78 14.6 6,906 1.92 176.2 60.65 6.901 2I.02 33.53 12.50 238 43.6 I4.85 14.6 7.157 1.99 I76.7 60.64 6.979 21.II 33.56 12.50 238 43.7 I4.93 14.7 7,188 2.00 176.8 60.64 6.995 21.13 33.56 12.50 238 43.7 I4.95 14.7 7.I99 2.00 176.8 60.64 6.995 21.13 33.56 12.50 238 43.7 14.95 14.7 7,200 2.00 176.8 60_64 6.995 21.13 33.56 12.50 238 43.7 14.95 14.7 9,033 2.51 178.8 60.60 7315 21.48 33.67 12.50 238 43.8 15.26 14.8 !

12,498 3.47 181.0 60.55 7.681 21.88 33.78 12.50 238 43.9 15.62 14.9 I5,848 4.40 182.0 60.53 7.850 22.06 33.80 12.50 238 43.9 15.79 I4.9 19,325 537 1823 60.52 7.903 22.10 33.78 12.50 238 43.9 15.84 14.9 22,924 637 182.2 60.52 7.885 22.06 33.74 12.50 238 43.9 15.82 14.9 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 2 of 16

k CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PD){

CALC,# M-734 CHECKED BY: M p-REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 72 OF 67-Table 2 Core Spray Pump whh 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75 F Seawater F14.5-17 Lookup Imkup Eq. 5 Eq.7 Eq. 8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (thm/ff) (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Flotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig I on Fig 2 26,735 7.43 181.7 60.53 7.799 21.95 33.66 12.50 238 43.8 15.74 14.8 30,495 8.47 181.0 60.55 7.681 21.80 33.58 12.50 238 43.7 15.62 I4.7 34,328 9.54 180.1 60.57 7.528 21.61 33.47 12.50 2.38 43.6 15.47 14.6 38,118 10.59 179.0 60.59 7348 2139 3336 12.50 238 43.5 15.29 14.5 42,01I i1.67 177.7 60.62 7.137 21.13 33.24 12.50 238 43.4 15.08 14.4 45,918 12.75 1763 60.65 6.916 20.86 33.10 12.50 238 43.2 14.87 14.2 49,869 13.85 174.8 60.68 6.687 20.58 32.% 12.50 238 43.1 14.64 14.I h 53,881 14.97 1733 60.72 6.463 2030 32.83 12.50 2.38 42.9 14.42 13.9 57.599 16.00 171.9 60.74 6.260 20.05 32.70 12.50 2.38 42.8 I4.22 13.8 57,600 16.00 171.9 60.74 6.260 20.05 32.70 12.50 238 42.8 14.22 13.8 57,880 16.08 171.8 60.75 6.246 20.04 32.69 12.50 238 42.8 14.21 13.8 .

61,998 17.22 1703 60.78 6.035 19.77 32.55 12.50 2.38 42.7 14.00 13.7 !.

66,179 1838 168.7 60.81 5.817 19.50 32.41 12.50 2.38 42.5 13.79 13.5 70.369 I9.55 167.2 60.85 5.6I8 19.25 32.27 12.50 238 42.4 13.60 13.4 74,594 20.72 165.7 60.88 5.425 19.01 32.13 12.50 238 423 13.41 133 };

78,915 2I.92 164.2 60.9I 5.237 I8.77 32.00 12.50 2.38 42.I I3.22 13.1 83,272 23.13 162.8 60.94 5.068 18.55 31.87 12.50 2.38 42.0 13.06 13.0 86,399 24.00 161.8 60.96 4.949 18.40 31.77 12.50 238 41.9 12.94 12.9 86,400 24.00 I61.8 60.% 4.949 18.40 31.77 12.50 238 41.9 12.94 12.9 87,590 2433 161.4 60.97 4.903 1834 31.74 12.50 238 41.9 12.90 12.9 91,959 25.54 160.0 60.99 4.741 18.13 31.61 12.50 2.38 41.7 12.74 12.7 i

1:

RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 3 of 16 i:

li

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: M CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: O REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 fu SHEET 3 OF M Table 2 Core Spray Pump wkh 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-17 Lookup Lookup Eq. 5 Eq.7 Eq. 8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Densiy Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (thm/ft') (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 96 315 26.75 158.7 61.02 4.597 17.94 31.49 12.50 238 41.6 12.60 12.6 100,723 27.98 157.5 61.04 4.466 17.77 3138 I2.50 238 4 I.5 12.47 12.5 105,128 29.20 1563 61.07 4339 17.60 31.26 1230 238 41.4 1235 12.4 107,999 30.00 155.5 61.08 4.256 17.49 31.19 12.50 238 413 12.26 123 108.000 30.00 1553 61.08 4.256 17.49 31.19 12.50 238 41.3 12.26 123 109.611 30.45 155.1 61.09 4.215 17.43 31.15 12.50 238 413 12.22 123 +

114.124 31.70 154.0 61.11 4.103 17.28 31.05 12.50 238 41.2 12.12 12.2 118,662 32.96 153.0 61.13 4.005 17.14 30.95 12.50 238 41.1 12.02 12.1 123,306 34.25 151.9 61.15 3.897 17.00 30.84 12.50 238 41.0 11.91 12.0 127,955 3534 151.0 61.17 3.812 16.88 30.75 12.50 238 40.9 11.83 11.9 132.637 36.84 150.0 61.19 3.718 16.74 30.65 1230 238 40.8 11.74 11.8 I37,298 38.14 149.0 61.21 3.628 16.62 30.56 I230 238 40.7 11.65 11.7 141,980 39.44 148.1 61.23 3.547 16.50 30.47 12.50 238 40.6 11.57 11.6 143.999 40.00 147.7 61.24 3.512 16.45 30.43 12.50 2.38 40.5 11.54 II3 144.000 40.00 147.7 61.24 3.512 16.45 30.43 12.50 238 40.5 11.54 113 146,749 40.76 147.1 61.25 3.460 1638 3037 12.50 238 40.5 11.49 11.5 151,545 42.10 146.2 61.26 3383 16.27 30.29 12.50 238 40.4 11.41 11.4 156,333 43.43 1453 61.28 3307 16.16 30.20 12.50 238 403 1134 113 161,157 44.77 144.5 6130 3.241 16.06 30.12 12.50 238 40.2 11.28 II.2 .

165,970 46.10 143.7 6131 3.176 15.97 30.04 1230 238 40.2 11.21 11.2 170.814 47.45 142.9 6132 3.112 15.87 29.96 12.50 238 40.I 11.15 11.1 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 4 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET g PREPARED BY: _ PbH-

)

CALC,# M-734 CHECKED BY: /J M REV, 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 3f OF _M Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-17 Imkup Imkup Eq.5 Eq.7 Eq.8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsi NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (thm/ft') (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 172,799 48.00 I42.6 6133 3.089 15.84 29.93 12.50 238 40.1 11.13 II.I 172.800 4R.00 142.6 6133 3.089 15.84 29.93 12.50 238 40.1 11.13 11.1 176,400 49.00 142.2 6I34 3.054 15.78 29.89 12.50 238 40.0 11.10 11.0 180,000 50.00 141.7 6134 3.020 15.73 29.84 -12.50 238 40.0 11.06 11.0 183,600 51.00 1413 6135 2.987 15.68 29.79 12.50 238 39.9 11.03 10.9 187,200 52.00 140.8 6136 2.954 15.63 29.75 12.50 2.38 39.9 11.00 190.800 53.00 140.4 6137 2.92I 10.9 _

15.58 29.70 12.50 238 39.8 10.97 10.8 194,400 54.00 140.0 61.38 2.887 15.53 29.66 12.50 238 39.8 10.93 10.8 198,000 55.00 139.5 6138 2.856 15.48 29.61 12.50 238 39.7 10.90 10.7 201,600 56.00 139.1 6139 2.824 15.43 29.57 12.50 238 39.7 10.87 10.7 205,200 57.00 138.7 61.40 2.792 1538 29.53 12.50 2.38 39.6 10.84 10.6 208,800 58.00 138.2 61.41 2.760 1533 29.48 12.50 2.38 39.6 10.81 10.6 212,400 59.00 137.8 61.41 2.729 15.29 29.44 12.50 2.38 39.6 10.78 10.6 216,000 60.00 1373 6l.42 2.699 15.24 29.40 12.50 238 39.5 10.75 10.5 219,600 61.00 136.9 61.43 2.668 15.19 2936 12.50 238 39.5 10.72 10.5 a 223,200 62.00 136.5 61.44 2.638 15.15 2932 12.50 238 39.4 10.69 10.4 226,800 63.00 136.0 61.45 2.607 15.10 29.28 12.50 238 39.4 10.66 10.4 230,400 64.00 135.6 61.45 2.578 15.06 29.24 12.50 238 39.4 10.64 10.4 234,000 65.00 135.2 61.46 2.549 15.01 29.20 12.50 238 393 10.61 103 237,600 66.00 134.7 61.47 2.520 14.97 29.17 12.50 238 393 10.58 103 241,200 67.00 134 3 61.48 2.491 14.93 29.13 12.50 238 39.2 10.55 10.2 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 5 of 16

k Peg CALCULATION SHEET

{ PREPARED BY:

CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: _d y-REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 l

SHEET I OF U. !

l l

Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater ,

FI4.5-17 Lookup Lookup Eq. 5 Eq.7 Eq.8 Eq. 9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSIIA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (thm/n') (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 244,800 68.00 133.8 61.48 2.462 14.88 29.09 12.50 238 39.2 10.52 10.2 l

248,400 69.00 133.4 61.49 2.434 14.84 29.06 12.50 238 39.2 10.50 10.2 l 252,000 70.00 133.0 61.50 2.407 14.80 29.03 12.50 238 39.I 10.47 10.1 255,600 71.00 132.5 61.51 2379 I4.76 28.99 12.50 238 39.1 10.44 10.I 259,200 72.00 132.1 61.51 235I 14.72 28.96 12.50 238 39.1 10.42 10.1 262,800 73.00 131.9 61.52 2337 14.70 28.95 12.50 2.38 39.I 10.40 10.I 266,400 74.00 131.7 61.52 2324 14.70 28.97 12.50 238 39.! 1039 10.1 270,000 75.00 131.5 61.53 231I 14.70 29.00 12.50 238 39.1 1038 10.1 2.298 14.70 29.03 12.50 238 39.I 1037 10,1 273.600 76.00 131.2 61.53 277,200 77.00 131.0 61.53 2.285 14.70 29.05 12.50 238 39.2 10.35 10.2 280.800 78.00 130.8 61.54 2.272 14.70 29.08 12.50 238 39.2 1034 10.2 284.400 79.00 130.6 61.54 2.258 14.70 29.1I 12.50 2.38 39.2 1033 10.2 288,000 80.00 130.4 61.54 2.245 14.70 29.14 12.50 2.38 393 1031 103 291,600 81.00 130.2 61.55 2.232 14.70 29.17 12.50 238 393 1030 103 295,200 82.00 129.9 61.55 2.219 I4.70 29.20 1230 238 39.3 iO.29 10.3 298,800 83.00 129.7 61.55 2.207 14.70 29.23 1230 2.38 393 10.28 103 302.400 84.00 129.5 61.56 2.194 14.70 29.25 12.50 2.38 39.4 10.26 10.4 306,000 85.00 129 3 61.56 2.18I I4.70 29.28 12.50 238 39.4 10.25 10.4 309,600 86.00 129.1 61.57 2.169 I4.70 2931 12.50 238 39.4 10.24 10.4 313,200 87.00 128.9 61.57 2.156 14.70 29.34 12.50 238 39 3 10.23 10.5 316,800 88.00 128.6 61.57 2.144 14.70 2937 12.50 238 39.5 10.22 10.5 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 6 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: Pblf CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: d y-REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET .% OF 62.

Table 2 Core Spray Pump wkh 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-I7 Lookup Lookup Eq.5 Eq. 7 Eq.8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (Ibm /ff) (psis) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 320,400 89.00 128.4 61.58 2.131 14.70 2939 12.50 238 39.5 10.20 10.5 324,000 90.00 128.2 61.58 2.I18 14.70 29.42 12.50 238 39.5 10.19 10.5 327,600 91.00 128.0 61.58 2.106 14.70 29.45 12.50 238 39.6 10.18 10.6 331,200 92.00 127.8 61.59 2.094 14.70 29.47 12.50 238 39.6 10.17 10.6 334,800 93.00 127.6 61.59 2.082 14.70 29.50 12.50 238 39.6 10.16 10.6 338,400 94.00 127.3 61.60 2.070 14.70 29.53 I2.50 2.38 39.6 10.15 10.6 342,000 95.00 127.1 61.60 2.058 14.70 29.55 12.50 2.38 39.7 10.13 10.7 345,600 96.00 126.9 61.60 2.046 14.70 29.58 12.50 238 39 ', 10.12 10.7 349,200 97.00 126.7 6I.6I 2.036 14.70 29.60 12.50 238 39.7 10.11 I0.7 352,800 98.00 126.6 61.61 2.027 14.70 29.62 12.50 2.38 39.7 10.10 10.7 356,400 99.00 126.4 61.61 2.017 14.70 29.64 12.50 238 39.8 10.10 10.8 360.000 100.00 126.2 61.61 2.008 14.70 29.66 12.50 2.38 39.8 10.09 10.8 363,600 101.00 126.0 61.62 1.998 14.70 29.68 12.50 238 39.8 10.08 10.8 367,200 102.00 125.9 61.62 1.989 14.70 29.70 12.50 238 39.8 10.07 10.8 370,800 103.00 125.7 61.62 1.980 14.70 29.72 12.50 238 39.8 10.06 10.8 374,400 104.00 125.5 61.63 1.971 I4.70 29.74 12.50 238 39.9 10.05 10.9 378.000 105.00 125.4 61.63 1.962 14.70 29.76 12.50 238 39.9 10.04 10.9 381.600 106.00 125.2 61 63 f.953 14.70 29.78 12.50 238 39.9 10.03 10.9 ,

385,200 107.00 125.0 68.63 1.944 14.70 29.80 12.50 238 39.9 10.02 10.9 388,800 10S.00 124.9 61.64 1.935 14.70 29.82 12.50 238 39.9 10.02 10.9 392,400 109.00 124.7 61.64 1.926 14.70 29.84 12.50 238 40.0 10.01 I 1.0 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 7 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET g PREPARED BY: Pod CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 37 OF 61 Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater Fl4.5-17 Lookup Lookup Eq. 5 Eq. 7 Eq. 8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available I Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (Ibm /ft') (psia) (psia) (feet) (fect) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 3 % ,000 110.00 124.5 61.64 1.917 14.70 29.86 I2.50 238 40.0 10.00 11.0 399,600 1 I I.00 124 3 61.64 I.908 I4.70 29.88 12.50 2.38 40.0 9.99 11.0 403,200 112,00 124.2 6I.65 1.899 I4.70 29.90 12.50 2.38 40.0 9.98 11.0 406,800 113.00 124.0 61.65 1.890 14.70 29.92 12.50 238 40.0 9.97 I I.0 ;

410,400 II4.00 123.8 61.65 I.881 14.70 29.94 12.50 238 40.1 9.96 I l.1 414,000 115.00 123.7 61.65 1.873 14.70 29.% 12.50 2.38 40.I 9.96 11.1 417,600 116.00 123.5 61.66 1.864 14.70 29.98 12.50 238 40.1 9.95 11.1 421,200 117.00 1233 61.66 1.855 14.70 30.00 12.50 238 40.1 9.94 I1.1 424,800 118.00 123.I 61.66 f.847 14.70 30.02 12.50 238 40.I 9.93 11.1 428,400 119.00 123.0 61.66 1.838 14.70 30.04 12.50 238 40.2 9.92 11.2 432,000 120.00 122.8 61.67 1.830 14.70 30.05 12.50 2.38 40.2 9.91 I 1.2 518,400 144.00 120.2 61.7I 1.702 14.70 3033 12.50 2.38 40.5 9.79 I I.5 604,800 168.00 118.2 61.74 1.610 14.70 30.53 12.50 238 40.7 9.70 11.7 691,200 192.00 116.2 61.77 1.522 14.70 30.72 12.50 238 40.8 9.62 11.8 777,600 216.00 114 3 61.80 1.442 14.70 30.89 12.50 2.38 41.0 9.55 12.0 864,000 240.00 1123 61.83 1362 14.70 31.06 12.50 238 41.2 9.47 12.2 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 8 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PDM CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: d REV. 2 DATE 3M)EC-98 SHEET 78 OF G1 Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater F14.5-17 Eq.1I Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Delwis w/LOCA Debris per for Delmis ,

Time Time Tp Head Loss PcDBA FSAR w/Pc Allow .

(sec) (hour) (*F) (feet) (psia) (psig) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 312 0.09 133.7 0.1 10.55 0.00 14.70 9.8 557 0.15 139.5 0.2 11.00 0.00 14.70 8.9 588 0.16 140.6 0.4 11.14 0.00 14.70 8.7 619 0.17 1413 0.5 11.26 0.00 14.70 8.6 656 0.18 142.0 0.7 I139 0.00 14.70 8.5

%9 0.27 I47.8 2.2 12.49 0.00 14.70 7.4 1.199 033 15I.0 33 13.25 0.00 14.70 6.8 I,200 033 151.0 33 13.25 1.90 16.60 11.2 1,281 0.36 152.1 3.7 13.52 1.90 16.60 11.0 t 1.594 0.44 155 3 5.1 14.42 1.90 16.60 103 1.799 0.50 157.1 5.7 14.86 1.90 16.60 9.8 1,800 0.50 157.1 5.7 14.86 3.00 17.70 12.4 1,906 0.53 158.0 6.0 15.08 3.00 17.70 12.2 2,219 0.62 160.1 7.0 15.70 3.00 17.70 11.7 2,531 0.70 162.0 7.9 I6.29 3.00 17.70 11.2 2,844 0.79 163.7 8.4 16.72 3.00 17.70 10.7 3,156 0.88 165.4 8.9 17.14 3.00 17.70 10.2 3,469 0.96 166.9 9.5 17.55 3.00 17.70 9.8 3.599 1.00 167.4 9.6 17.69 3.00 17.70 9.7 3,600 1.00 I67.4 9.6 17.69 5.00 19.70 14.4 j; 3,781 1.05 l 168.2 9.8 17.87 5.00 19.70 14.1 ,'

RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 9 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET , g, PREPARED BY: PDie CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-96 SHEET 39 OF @

Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater Fl4.5-17 Eq. II Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/LOCA Debris per for Detris Time Time Tp Head Loss Pc DBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) ('F) (feet) (psia) (psig) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 4.094 1.14 169.4 10.1 18.16 5.00 19.70 13.8 4.406 1.22 170.4 10.4 18.42 5.00 19.70 13.5 4,719 I.31 17IJ l0.7 I8.64 5.00 19.70 13.2 5,031 1.40 172.2 10.8 'I8.83 5.00 19.70 12.9 5.344 1.48 173.0 11.0 19.02 5.00 19.70 12.6 5,656 1.57 173.7 11.1 19.18 5.00 19.70 12.4 5,969 1.66 174.4 I I.2 1932 5.00 19.70 12.1 5.999 f .67 174.5 I13 1934 5.00 19.70 12.1 6,000 1.67 174.5 113 1934 5.00 19.70 12.1 i 6,28I 1.74 175.0 1 I .4 19.46 5.00 19.70 I 1.9 6,594 1.83 175.7 11.5 19.60 5.00 19.70 11.7 6,906 1.92 176.2 11.5 19.68 5.00 19.70 11.5 7,157 1.99 176.7 11.5 19.77 5.00 19.70 11 3 7,188 2.00 176.8 11.5 19.78 5.00 19.70 11 3 7.199 2.00 176.8 11.5 19.78 5.00 19.70 11 3 7,200 2.00 176.R 6.1 I7.52 5.00 19.70 IIJ 9,033 2.51 178.8 6.2 17.86 5.00 19.70 10.6 12,498 3.47 !81.0 6.2 18.22 5.00 19.70 9.7 15,848 4.40 182.0 6.2 1837 5.00 19.70 93 19.325 537 I82.3 6.1 18.41 5.00 19.70 9.2 22,924 637 182.2 6.1 18.40 5.00 19.70 9.2 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-96 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 10 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET mg PREPARED BY: 9)ll CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: A REV. 2 DATE 10.DEC-98 SHEET 40 OF 62 Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate -75'F Seawater Fl4.5-17 Eq. II Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris wiLOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp Head Loss Pc DBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) (*F) (feen (psia) (psig) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 26,735 7.43 181.7 6.2 1833 5.00 19.70 9.4 30,495 8.47 181.0 6.2 18.23 5.00 19.70 9.7 34,328 9.54 180.1 63 18.10 5.00 19.70 10.1 38,II8 10.59 179.0 63 17.94 5.00 19.70 10.5 42.0II i1.67 177.7 63 17.76 5.00 19.70 11.0 45,9I8 12.75 1763 6.4 17.56 5.00 19.70 11.5 49.869 13.85 174.8 6.4 1736 5.00 19.70 12.0 53.881 14.97 173.3 6.5 17.16 5.00 19.70 12.5 57.599 16.00 171.9 6.5 16.98 5.00 19.70 13.0 57/4X) 16.00 171.9 6.5 16.98 2.50 17.20 7.1 57,880 16.08 171.8 6.5 16.97 2.50 17.20 7.1 61,998 I7.22 1703 6.6 16.79 2.50 17.20 7.6 66,179 18.38 168.7 6.7 16.60 2.50 17.20 8.1 70.069 I9.55 167.2 6.7 16.44 2.50 17.20 8.5 74,594 20.72 165.7 6.8 I6.27 2.50 17.20 9.0 78,915 21.92 164.2 6.8 16.12 2.50 17.20 9.4 83,272 23.13 162.8 6.9 15.98 2.50 17.20 9.8 R6.399 24.00 161.8 7.0 15.89 2.50 17.20 10.1 86.400 24.00 161.8 7.0 15.89 2.50 17.20 10.1 87,590 2433 161.4 7.0 15.85 2.50 17.20 10.2 9I,959 25.54 160.0 7.1 15.73 2.50 17.20 10.5 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 11 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET PREPfJtED BY: PDS CALC # M 734 CHECKED BY: elrY REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 41 OF C1 Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leskage Rate - 747 Seawater F14.5-17 Eq.1I Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/ LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp Head Loss Pc DBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (tec) (hour) ('F) (feet) (psia) (psig) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Pioned Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2

%,315 26.75 158.7 7.1 15.62 2.50 17.20 10.9 100,723 27.98 157.5 7.2 15.52 2.50 17.20 11.2 105,128 29.20 1563 73 15.42 230 17.20 I I.4 107,999 30.00 155.5 73 1536 2.50 17.20 I1.6 108.000 30.00 155.5- 73 1536 1.00 15.70 8.I 109.611 30.45 155.I 73 1533 1.00 15.70 8.2 II4,124 31.70 154.0 7.4 1124 1.00 15.70 8.4 II 8.662 32.% 153.0 7.4 15.17 I.00 15.70 8.7 123.306 34.25 151.9 7.5 15.09 1.00 15.70 8.9 127,955 35.54 151.0 7.5 15.04 1.00 15.70 9.1 132,637 36.84 150.0 7.6 14.97 1.00 15.70 93 137,298 38.I4 I49.0 7.7 14.9I 1.00 15.70 9.5 141,980 39.44 148.1 7.7 14.86 1.00 15.70 9.7 143.999 40.00 147.7 7.7 14.83 1.00 15.70 9.8 I44.000 40.00 147.7 7.7 I4.83 1.00 15.70 9.8 146,749 40.76 147.1 7.8 14.80 1.00 15.70 9.9 151,545 42.10 146.2 7.8 14.75 1.00 15.70 10.1 156,333 43.43 145 3 7.9 14.70 1.00 15.70 10.2 161,157 44.77 144.5 7.9 I4.65 1.00 15.70 10.4 165,970 46.10 143.7 8.0 14.61 1.00 15.70 10.5 170,814 47.45 142.9 8.0 14.57 1.00 15.70 10.7 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 12 of 16

cal.CULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PDN CALC,# M-734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 42 OF 61 Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Imkage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-17 Eq. II Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/ LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp IIcad Loss PcDBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) ('F) (feet) (psia) (psia) (psia) (feet)

Pioned Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 172.799 48.00 I42.6 8.0 14.55 1.00 15.70 10.7 172.800 lR.00 142.6 8.0 14.55 0.00 14.70 8.4 176,400 49.00 142.2 8.1 14.53 0.00 14.70 8.5 I80.000 50.00 141.7 8.1 14.52 0.00 14.70 8.5 183,600 51.00 1413 8.1 14.50 0.00 14.70 8.6 I87,200 52.00 I40.8 8.2 14.48 0.00 !4.70 8.7 190,800 53.00 140.4 8.2 I4.47 0.00 I4.70 8.8 194,400 54.00 140.0 8.2 14.45 0.00 !4.70 8.8 198.000 55.00 139.5 83 14.43 0.00 14.70 8.9 201,600 56.00 139.1 83 14.41 0.00 14.70 9.0 205,200 57.00 138.7 83 1439 0.00 14.70 9.0 208.800 58.00 138.2 8.4 1438 0.00 14.70 9.1 212,400 59.00 137.8 8.4 I436 0.00 14.70 9.2 216,000 60.00 137.3 8.4 1434 0.00 14.70 93 219.600 61.00 136.9 8.5 1433 0.00 14.70 93 223,200 62.00 I36.5 8.5 1431 0.00 14.70 9.4 226,800 63.00 136.0 8.5 1430 0.00 14.70 9.5 230.400 64.00 135.6 8.5 14.28 0.00 14.70 9.5 234,000 65.00 135.2 8.6 I4.27 0.00 14.70 9.6 237,600 66.00 134.7 8.6 14.25 0.00 14.70 9.7 241.200 67.00 134 3 8.6 14.24 0.00 14.70 9.7 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File - NPSH75MM.XLS Page 13 of 16

~

CALCULATION SHEET ,

PREPARED BY: PDia.

CALC. # _ M-734 CHECKED BY: d REV. 2

,f V ~

DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET U OF 67, Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leskage Rate - 75'F Seawater F14.5-17 Eq.II Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp Head Loss Pc DBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) ('F) (fec0 (psis) (psig) (psis) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 244,800 68.00 133.8 8.7 14.22 0.00 14.70 9.8 248,400 69.00 133.4 8.7 14.21 0.00 14.70 9.8 252,000 70.00 133.0 8.7 I4.20 0.00 I4.70 9.9 255,600 71.00 132.5 8.8 I4.18 0.00 14.70 10.0 259,200 72.00 132.1 8.8 14.17 0.00 14.70 10.0 262.800 73.00 131.9 8.8 14.17 0.00 I4.70 10.1 266,400 74.00 131.7 8.8 14.16 0.00 14.70 10.1 270,000 75.00 131.5 8.9 I4.16 0.00 14.70 10.1 273,600 76.00 I31.2 8.9 I4.I6 0.00 14.70 10.1 277.200 77.00 I31.0 8.9 I4.15 0.00 14.70 10.2 280,800 78.00 130.8 8.9 I4.14 0.00 14.70 10.2 284,400 79.00 130.6 8.9 14.14 0.00 14.70 10.2 288,000 80.00 130.4 8.9 14.13 0.00 14.70 103 291,600 81.00 130.2 9.0 14.13 0.00 14.70 103 295,200 82.00 129.9 9.0 14.12 0.00 I4.70 103 298,800 83.00 129.7 9.0 14.12 0.00 14.70 10.3 302,400 84.00 129.5 9.0 14.12 0.00 14.70 10.4 306,000 85.00 1293 9.0 14.11 0.00 14.70 10.4 309,600 86.00 129.1 9.0 14.11 0.00 14.70 10.4 313.200 87.00 128.9 9.1 14.10 0.00 14.70 10.5 316.800 88.00 128.6 9.1 14.IO 0.00 14.70 10.5 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 14 d 16

CALCULATION SHEET . PREPARED BY: PDM

'} .

CALC. # M-734 CHECKdD BY: ,W REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET N OF 62 Table 2 Core Spray Pump wkh 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75"F Seawater F14.5-17 Eq.11 Eq.12 LOCA Strainer PcAllow Margin Debris w/LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp Head Loss Pc DBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) ('F) (feet) (psia) (psig) (psis) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Pioned Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 320,400 89.00 128.4 9.I 14.09 0.00 14.70 103 324,000 90.00 128.2 9.I I4.09 0.00 14.70 103 327,600 91.00 128.0 9.1 I4.08 0.00 14.70 10.6 331,200 92.00 127.8 9.1 14.08 0.00 14.70 10.6 334,800 93.00 127.6 9.2 14.07 0.00 14.70 10.6 i 338,400 94.00 127.3 9.2 14.07 0.00 14.70 10.6 342,000 95.00 127.1 9.2 14.07 0.00 14.70 10.7 345,600 96.00 126.9 9.2 I4.06 0.00 14.70 10.7 349,200 97.00 126.7 9.2 I4.06 0.00 I4.70 10.7 352,800 98.00 126.6 9.2 14.06 0.00 14.70 10.7 356,400 99.00 126.4 93 I4.05 0.00 I4.70 10.8 360,000 100.00 126.2 93 I4.05 0.00 I4.70 10.8 363,600 101.00 126.0 93 14.05 0.00 14.70 10.8 367,200 102.00 125.9 93 14.05 0.00 14.70 10.8 ,

370,800 103.00 125.7 93 I4.05 0.00 14.70 10.8 Ii 374,400 104.00 125.5 93 14.04 0.00 14.70 10.9 378,000 105.00 125.4 93 14.04 0.00 I4.70 10.9 381,600 106.00 125.2 9.4 14.04 0.00 14.70 10.9 385,200 107.00 125.0 9.4 14.04 0.00 14.70 10.9 388,800 108.00 124.9 9.4 14.G4 0.00 14.70 10.9 392,400 109.00 124.7 9.4 14.03 0.00 14.70 11.0 ,

RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 15 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET [ PREPARED BY: Pbd CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET ff OF 62.

Table 2 Core Spray Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater -

Fl4.5-17 Eq.II Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/ LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp Head Loss PcDBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) ('F) (feet) (psis) (psig) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Pktted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 3 %,000 110.00 124.5 9.4 14.03 0.00 14.70 11.0 399,600 111.00 124.3 9.4 14.03 0.00 14.70 11.0 403,200 112.00 124.2 9.4 14.03 0.00 14.70 11.0 406,800 113.00 124.0 9.5 14.02 0.00 14.70 11.0 410.400 I I4.00 123.8 9.5 1102 0.00 14.70 11.1 414,000 115.00 123.7 9.5 14.02 0.00 14.70 11.1 417,600 116.00 123.5 9.5 14.01 0.00 14.70 11.1 421,200 117.00 123.3 9.5 14.01 0.00 14.70 11.1 424,800 118.00 123.1 9.5 14.00 0.00 14.70 11.1 428,400 I I9.00 123.0 9.5 14.00 0.00 14.70 11.2 432,000 120.00 122.8 9.5 I3.99 0.00 14.70 11.2 518,400 144.00 120.2 9.7 13.97 0.00 14.70 11.5 604,800 168.00 I18.2 10.0 13.98 0.00 14.70 I I.7 691,200 192.00 1I6.2 10.2 13.99 0.00 14.70 11.8 777,600 216.00 114.3 70.4 14.00 0.00 14.70 12.0 864,000 240.00 112.3 10.6 14.02 0.00 14.70 12.2 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 16 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PbA ,

CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: M REV. 2 DATE 30 DEC-98 SHEET I6 OF 62.

Table 3 RHR Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater Fl4.5-17 lookup Lookup Eq.5 Eq. 7 Eq.8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total l Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (Ihm/ff) (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (Icet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 312 0.09 133.7 61.49 2.453 15.66 30.92 12.50 3.20 40.2 10.01 13.2 557 0.15 139.5 6138 2.853 16.19 31.28 12.50 3.20 40.6 10.40 13.6 588 0.16 I40.6 6136 2.935 16.29 3134 12.50 3.20 40.6 10.48 13.6 619 0.17 14l3 6135 2.988 1636 3139 12.50 3.20 40.7 10.53 13.7 656 0.18 142.0 61.34 3.041 16.43 31.43 12.50 3.20 40.7 10.58 13.7 969 0.27 147.8 61.23 3.521 17.04 31.79 12.50 3.20 41.1 11.05 14.1 1.199 033 15I.0 61.17 3.812 17.40 31.98 12.50 3.20 413 1133 14 3 I.200 033 151.0 61.17 3.812 17.40 31.98 12.50 3.20 41.3 1133 14 3 1,281 036 152.1 61.15 3.916 17.53 32.05 12.50 3.20 41.4 11.43 14.4 1.594 0.44 1553 61.09 4.235 17.92 32.25 12.50 3.20 4i.5 11.74 14.5 1.799 0.50 157.I 61.05 4.424 I8.14 3236 12.50 3.20 41.7 11.93 14.7 1,800 0.50 157.1 61.05 4.424 18.14 3236 12.50 3.20 41.7 11.93 14.7 0.53 158.0 61.04 4.520 18.26 32.42 12.50 3.20 41.7 12.02 14.7 1.906 2,219 0.62 160.1 60.99 4.753 18.54 32.55 12.50 3.20 41.8 12.25 14.8 l 2.531 0.70 162.0 60.95 4.972 18.80 32.66 12.50 3.20 42.0 12.46 15.0 ,

2,844 0.79 163.7 60.92 5.176 19.04 32.77 12.50 3.20 42.I 12.66 15.1 3,156 0.88 165.4 60.88 5387 19.29 32.87 12.50 3.20 42.2 12.87 15.2 3,469 0.96 166.9 60.85 5.579 19.51 32.97 12.50 3.20 423 13.06 15 3 60.84 5.644 19.59 33.00 12.50 3.20 423 13.12 15 3 3.599 1.00 167.4 I.00 167.4 60.84 5.644 19.59 33.00 12.50 3.20 423 13.12 15 3 3.600 3,781 33.05 12.50 3.20 423 13.23 15 3 I.05 168.2 60.82 5.749 19.71 Page 1 of 16 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS

CALCULATION SHEET

} PREPARED BY: ?Did CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 47 OF ('l.

Table 3 RHR Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater F14.5-17 Lookup Lookup Eq. 5 Eq.7 Eq.8 Eq. 9 Eq.IO Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (thm/A') (psia) (psia) (feet) (fect) (feet) (feet) (psia) (fee 0 Plotted Plotted Plotted Plo;ted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 4,094 1.14 169.4 60.80 5.912 19.90 33.12 12.50 3.20 42.4 1338 15.4 4,406 1.22 170.4 60.78 0.049 20.05 33.18 1230 3.20 42.5 13.52 15 3 4,719 131 1713 60.76 6.175 20.20 33.24 12.50 3.20 42.5 13.64 15.5 5.031 1.40 172.2 60.74 6303 2034 33.29 12.50 3.20 42.6 13.77 15.6 5.344 1.48 173.0 60.72 6.420 20.48 3334 12.50 3.20 42.6 13.88 15.6 5,656 137 173.7 60.71 6.522 20.59 3338 12.50 3.20 42.7 13.98 15.7 5,%9 1.u6 174.4 60.69 6.626 20.71 33.42 12.50 3.20 42.7 14.09 15.7 5,999 1.67 174.5 60.69 6.641 20.73 33.43 12.50 3.20 42.7 14.10 15.7 6,tXX) 1.67 174.5 60.69 6.641 20.73 33.43 12.50 3.20 42.7 14.10 15.7 6,281 f .74 175.0 60.68 6.717 20.82 33.46 12.50 3.20 42.8 14.18 15.8 6,594 1.83 175.7 60.66 6.823 20.94 33.50 12.50 3.20 42.8 14.28 15.8 6,906 1.92 176.2 60.65 6.901 21.02 33.53 12.50 3.20 42.8 1436 15.8 7,157 1.99 I76.7 60.64 6.979 21.11 33.56 12.50 3.20 42.9 I4.43 15.9 7,188 2.00 176.8 60.64 6.995 21.13 33.56 12.50 3.20 42.9 14.45 15.9 7.199 2.00 176.8 60.64 6.995 21.13 33.56 12.50 3.20 42.9 14.45 15.9 7,200 2.tX) 176.8 60.64 6.995 21.13 3336 12.50 3.20 42.9 14.45 15.9 9,033 2.51 178.8 60.60 7315 21.48 33.67 12.50 3.20 43.0 14 76 16.0 12,498 3.47 181.0 60.55 7.681 21.88 33.78 12.50 3.20 43.1 15.12 16.1 15,848 4.40 182.0 60.53 7.850 22.06 33.80 1230 3.20 43.1 15.29 16.1 19J25 537 1823 60.52 7.903 22.10 33.78 12.50 3.20 43.1 1534 16.1 22,924 637 182.2 60.52 7.885 22.06 33.74 12.50 3.20 43.0 1532 16.0 i;

RHR/CS Calc 30.DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 2 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: 994 CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: M

/O' REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 48 OF G7.

Table 3 RHR Dump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater F14.5-17 Lookup Lookup Eq.5 Eq. 7 Eq.8 Eq.9 Eq.IO Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSIIA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (thm/R )

8 (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 26,735 7.43 181.7 60.53 7.799 21.95 33.66 12.50 3.20 43.0 15.24 16.0 30,495 8.47 181.0 60.55 7.681 21.80 33.58 12.50 3.20 42.9 15.12 15.9 34,328 9.54 180.1 60.57 7.528 21.61 33.47 12.50 3.20 42.8 14.97 15.8 38,118 10.59 179.0 60.59 7348 2139 3336 12.50 3.20 42.7 14.80 15.7 42,011 II.67 177.7 60.62 7.137 21.13 33.24 12.50 3.20 42.5 14.59 15.5 45,918 12.75 1763 60.65 6.916 20.86 33.10 12.50 3.20 42.4 1437 15.4 49,869 13.85 174.8 60.68 6.687 20.58 32.% 12.50 3.20 42.3 14.15 15 3 53,881 14.97 1733 60.72 6.463 2030 32.83 12.50 3.20 42.1 13.93 15.1 57.599 16.00 171.9 60.74 6.260 20.05 32.70 12.50 3.20 42.0 I3.73 15.0 57Joo 16.00 171.9 60.74 6.260 20.05 32.70 12.50 3.20 42.0 13.73 15.0 57,880 16.08 171.8 60.75 6.246 20.04 32.69 12.50 3.20 42.0 13.71 15.0 61,998 17.22 1703 60.78 6.035 19.77 32.55 12.50 3.20 41.8 13.51 14.8 66,179 1838 168.7 60.81 5.817 19.50 32.41 12.50 3.20 41.7 13.29 14.7 70.369 I9.55 I67.2 60.85 5.6I8 19.25 32.27 12.50 3.20 41.6 13.10 14.6 74,594 20.72 165.7 60.88 5.425 19.01 32.13 12.50 3.20 41.4 12.91 14.4 78.9I5 21.92 164.2 60.91 5.237 18.77 32.00 12.50 3.20 413 12.72 14.3 83,272 23.13 162.8 60.94 5.068 18.55 31.87 12.50 3.20 41.2 12.56 14.2 86,399 24.00 16I.8 60.% 4.949 18.40 31.77 12.50 3.20 41.1 12.44 14.1 86,400 24.00 161.8 60.96 4.949 18.40 31.77 12.50 3.20 41.1 12.44 14.1 87,590 2433 161.4 60.97 4.903 1834 31.74 12.50 3.20 41.0 12.40 14.0 91,959 25.54 160.0 60.99 4.74I I8.13 31.61 12.50 3.20 40.9 12.24 I3.9 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 3 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET PREPAREDBY: Pb14 CALC. # M 734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 49 OF 67-Table 3 RHR Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater Fl4.5-17 Lookup Imkup Eq.5 Eq.7 Eq.8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) (*F) Obm/n') (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 96,315 26.75 158.7 61.02 4.597 17.94 31.49 12.50 3.20 40.8 12.10 13.8 100,723 27.98 157.5 61.04 4.466 17.77 31.38 12.50 3.20 40.7 11.97 13.7 105,128 29.20 1563 61.07 4339 17.60 31.26 12.50 3.20 40.6 11.84 13.6 107,999 30.00 155.5 61.08 4.256 17.49 31.19 12.50 3.20 40.5 11.76 13.5 108.000 30.00 1553 61.08 4.256 17.49 31.19 12.50 3.20 403 I1.76 13.5 109,611 30.45 155.1 61.09 4.215 17.43 31.15 12.50 3.20 40.5 11.72 13 3 114.124 31.70 154.0 61.I I 4.103 17.28 31.05 12.50 3.20 403 11.61 133 118.662 32.% 153.0 61.13 4.005 17.14 30.95 12.50 3.20 40.2 11.52 13.2 123,306 34.25 151.9 61.15 3.897 17.00 30.84 12.50 3.20 40.1 11.41 13.1 127,955 35.54 151.0 61.17 3.812 16.88 30.75 12.50 3.20 40.1 1133 13.1 132,637 36.84 150.0 61.19 3.718 16.74 30.65 12.50 3.20 40.0 11.24 13.0 137,298 38.14 149.0 61.21 3.628 16.62 30.56 12.50 3.20 39.9 11.15 12.9 141,980 39.44 148.1 61.23 3.547 16.50 30.47 12.50 3.20 39.8 11.07 12.8 143.999 40m 147.7 61.24 3312 16.45 30.43 1230 3.20 39.7 11.04 12.7 144.000 40.00 147.7 61.24 3.512 16.45 30.43 12.50 3.20 ~39.7 11.04 12.7 146,749 40.76 147.I 61.25 3.460 1638 3037 12.50 3.20 39.7 10.99 12.7 151,545 42.10 146.2 61.26 3383 16.27 30.29 12.50 3.20 39.6 10.91 12.6 156,333 43.43 145.3 61.28 3307 16.16 30.20 12.50 3.20 39.5 10.84 12.5 161,I57 44.77 144.5 6130 3.241 16.06 30.12 12.50 3.20 39.4 10.78 12.4 165,970 46.10 143.7 61.31 3.176 15.97 30.04 12.50 3.20 39.3 10.71 123 170,814 47.45 142.9 6132 3.112 15.87 29.% 12.50 3.20 393 10.65 123 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XI.S Page 4 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: 993 CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY: f; M REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET ED OF C2.

Table 3 RHR Pump whh 5%/ Day Irakage Rate - 75'F Seawater Fl4.5-17 Lookup Lookup Eq. 5 Eq.7 Eq.8 Eq. 9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (Ibm /IP) (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Pioned Pioned Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 172,799 48.00 142.6 61.33 3.089 15.84 29.93 12.50 3.20 39.2 10.63 12.2 172.800 48.00 142.6 6133 3.089 15.84 29.93 12.50 3.20 39.2 10.63 12.2 176,400 49.00 142.2 6134 3.054 15.78 29.89 12.50 3.20 39.2 10.59 12.2 180,000 50.00 I41.7 6134 3.020 15.73 29.84 12.50 3.20 39.1 10.56 12.1 183,600 51.00 1413 6135 2.987 15.68 29.79 12.50 3.20 39.1 10.53 12.I 187,200 52.00 140.8 61.36 2.954 15.63 29.75 12.50 3.20 39.0 10.50 12.0 190,800 53.00 140.4 6137 2.921 15.58 29.70 12.50 ?.20 39.0 10.46 12.0 194,400 54.00 140.0 6138 2.887 15.53 29.66 I2.50 3.20 39.0 10.43 12.0 198,000 55.00 139.5 61.38 2.856 15.48 29.61 12.50 3.20 38.9 10.40 11.9 201,600 56.00 139.1 6139 2.824 15.43 29.57 12.50 3.20 38.9 1037 11.9 205.200 57.00 138.7 61.40 2.792 1538 29.53 12.50 3.20 38.8 1034 11.8 208,800 58.00 138.2 61.41 2.760 1533 29.48 12.50 3.20 38.8 1031 11.8 212,400 59.00 137.8 61.41 2.729 15.29 29.44 12.50 3.20 38.7 10.28 11.7 216,000 60.00 137.3 61.42 2.699 15.24 29.40 12.50 3.20 38.7 10.25 11.7 219,600 61.00 I36.9 6I.43 2.668 15.19 2936 12.50 3.20 38.7 10.22 11.7 ,

223,200 62.00 136.5 61.44 2.638 15.15 2932 12.50 3.20 38.6 10.19 11.6 226.800 63.00 136.0 61.45 2.607 15.10 29.28 12.50 3.20 38.6 10.16 I l.6 230,400 64.00 135.6 61.45 2.578 15.06 29.24 12.50 3.20 38.5 10.13 11.5 234,000 65.00 135.2 61.46 2.549 15.01 29.20 12.50 3.20 383 10.10 11.5 237,600 66.00 134.7 61.47 2.520 14.97 29.17 12.50 3.20 38.5 10.08 11.5 241,200 67.00 134 3 61.48 2.491 14.93 29.13 12.50 3.20 38.4 10.05 11.4 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 5 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET g PREPARED BY: PD){

CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 57 OF 62 Table 3 RHR Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater F143-17 Lookup Lookup Eq. 5 Eq.7 Eq.8 Eq. 9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsi NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (lbm/ft') (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 244,800 68.00 133.8 61.48 2.462 14.88 29.09 12.50 3.20 38.4 10.02 11.4 248,400 69.00 133.4 61.49 2.434 14.84 29.06 12.50 3.20 38.4 9.99 11.4 252,000 70.00 133.0 61.50 2.407 14.80 29.03 12.50 3.20 38.3 9.97 113 255,600 71.00 132.5 61.51 2379 I4.76 28.99 I2.50 3.20 383 9.94 IIJ 259,200 72.00 132.1 61.51 235I I4.72 28.% 12.50 3.20 383 9.91 113 262,800 73.00 131.9 61.52 2337 14.70 28.95 12.50 3.20 38.2 9.90 11.2 266,400 74.00 131.7 61.52 2324 14.70 28.97 12.50 3.20 383 9.89 Il.3 270,000 75.00 131.5 61.53 23I1 14.70 29.00 12.50 3.20 383 9.87 113 273,600 76.00 131.2 61.53 2.298 14.70 29.03 12.50 3.20 383 9.86 11 3 277,200 77.00 131.0 61.53 2.285 14.70 29.05 12.50 3.20 38.4 9.85 11.4 280,800 78.00 130.8 61.54 2.272 14.70 29.08 12.50 3.20 38.4 9.84 11.4 284,400 79.00 130.6 6I.54 2.258 I4.70 29.11 12.50 3.20 38.4 9.82 I 1.4 288,000 80.00 130.4 61.54 2.245 14.70 29.I4 12.50 3.20 38.4 9.8I I 1.4 291.600 81.00 130.2 61.55 2.232 I4.70 29.17 12.50 3.20 38.5 9.80 I1.5 ;

295,200 82.00 129.9 6I.55 2.219 I4.70 29.20 12.50 3.20 38.5 9.78 11.5 298,800 83.00 129.7 61.55 2.207 14.70 29.23 12.50 3.20 38.5 9.77 I l.5 302,400 84.00 129.5 61.56 2.194 14.70 29.25 12.50 3.20 38.6 9.76 1 I.6 306,000 85.00 1293 61.56 2.181 14.70 29.28 12.50 3.20 38.6 9.75 I I.6 ;

309,600 86.00 129.1 61.57 2.169 14.70 29.31 12.50 3.20 38.6 9.74 11.6 313,200 87.00 128.9 61.57 2.156 14.70 2934 12.50 3.20 38.6 9.72 11.6 316,800 88.00 128.6 61.57 2.144 14.70 2937 12.50 3.20 38.7 9.7I i 1.7 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 6 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PbN CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 82 OF 62.

Table 3 RHR Pump wkh 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75"F Seawater FI 4.5-17 Lookup Imkup Eq.5 Eq.7 Eq. 8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pc Req'd Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) Chm /ff) (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted en Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 320,400 89.00 128.4 61.58 2.131 14.70 29.39 12.50 3.20 38.7 9.70 11.7 324,000 90.00 128.2 61.58 2.II8 14.70 29.42 12.50 3.20 38.7 9.69 11.7 327,600 91.00 128.0 61.58 2.106 14.70 29.45 12.50 3.20 38.7 9.68 11.7 331,200 92 00 127.8 61.59 2.094 14.70 29.47 12.50 3.20 38.8 9.66 11.8 334,800 93.00 127.6 61.59 2.082 14.70 29.50 12.50 3.20 38.8 9.65 11.8 338,400 94.00 127.3 61.60 2.070 14.70 29.53 12.50 3.20 38.8 9.64 11.8 342,000 95.00 127.1 61.60 2.058 14.70 29.55 12.50 3.20 38.9 9.63 11.9 345,600 %.00 126.9 61.60 2.046 14.70 29.58 12.50 3.20 38.9 9.62 I I.9 349,200 97.00 126.7 6I.61 2.036 I4.70 29.60 12.50 3.20 38.9 9.6I I I.9 352,800 98.00 126.6 61.61 2.027 14.70 29.62 12.50 3.20 38.9 9.60 I I.9 356.400 99.00 126.4 61.61 2.017 14.70 29.64 J 2.50 3.20 38.9 9.59 I 1.9 360,000 100.00 126.2 61.61 2.008 14.70 29.56 I2.50 3.20 39.0 9.58 12.0 363,600 101.00 126.0 61.62 1.998 I4.70 29.68 12.50 3.20 39.0 9.57 12.0 l02.00 125.9 61.62 1.989 I4.70 29.70 12.50 3.20 39.0 9.56 12.0 367.200 370,800 103.00 125.7 61.62 1.980 14.70 29.72 12.50 3.20 39.0 9.55 12.0 374,400 104.00 125.5 61.63 1.971 14.70 29.74 12.50 3.20 39.0 9.55 12.0 378,000 105.00 125.4 61.63 I.962 14.70 29.76 12.50 3.20 39.1 9.54 12.1 381.600 106.00 125.2 61.63 1.953 14.70 29.78 12.50 3.20 39.1 9.53 12.1 385.200 107.00 125.0 61.63 1.944 I4.70 29.80 12.50 3.20 39.1 9.52 12.1 388,800 124.9 61.64 1.935 I4.70 29.82 12.50 3.20 39.1 9.51 12.1 108.00 392,400 109.00 124.7 61.64 1.926 14.70 29.84 12.50 3.20 39.1 9.50 12.1 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 7 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET g PREPARED BY: Phil CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: M

/U REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET F.3 OF 6f.

Table 3 RIIR Pump with 5%/ Day Isakage Rate - 75'F Seawater F14.5-17 Im kup Imkup Eq.5 Eq.7 Eq. 8 Eq.9 Eq.10 Clean Clean Total Strainer Strainer Available Time Time Tp Density Pvp Pc Pgas Hz Hsl NPSHA Pe ~ 4*d Margin (sec) (hour) ('F) (thm/ft') (psia) (psia) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (psis) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig i on Fig i on Fig 2 3 %,000 110.00 124.5 61.64 1.917 14.70 29.86 12.50 3.20 39.2 9.49 12.2 399,600 111.00 124 3 61.64 1.908 14.70 29.88 12.50 3.20 39.2 9.48 12.2 403,200 112.00 124.2 61.65 1.899 14.70 29.90 12.50 3.20 39.2 9.48 12.2 406,800 113.00 124.0 61.65 I.890 14.70 29.92 12.50 3.20 39.2 9.47 12.2 410,400 114.00 123.8 61.65 1.88I I4.70 29.94 12.50 3.20 39.2 9.46 12.2 4I4,000 115.00 123.7 61.65 1.873 14.70 29.% 12.50 3.20 39.3 9.45 123 417,600 116.00 123.5 61.66 1.864 14.70 29.98 12.50 3.20 393 9.44 123 421,200 117.00 123 3 61.66 1.855 14.70 30.00 12.50 3.20 393 9.43 123 424,800 118.00 123.1 61.66 1.847 14.70 30.02 12.50 3.20 393 9.43 123 428,400 119.00 123.0 61.66 f.838 14.70 30.04 12.50 3.20 393 9.42 12.3 432,000 120.00 122.8 61.67 !.!30 14.70 30.05 12.50 3.20 39.4 9.41 12.4 5I8,400 144.00 I20.2 61.71 1.702 14.70 3033 12.50 3.20 39.6 9.29 12.6 604,800 168.00 118.2 61.74 1.610 14.70 30.53 12.50 3.20 39.8 9.20 12.8 691,200 192.00 116.2 6I.77 1.522 14.70 30.72 12.50 3.20 40.0 9.1 I 13.0 777.600 216.00 114 3 61.80 1.442 14.70 30.89 12.50 3.20 40.2 9.04 13.2 -

864.000 240.00 1123 61.83 1362 I4.70 31.06 !2.50 3.20 40.4 8.96 13.4 i

I RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 8 of t8 l!

I;

CALCULATION SHEET

( PREPARED BY: 994 CALC,# M-734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET Ff OF 61 Table 3 RHR Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-17 Eq. II Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp Head Loss P- DBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) ('F) (feet) (psia) (psig) (3::a) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Pioned on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i 312 0.09 133.7 0.1 10.05 0.00 I4.70 11.0 557 0.15 139.5 0.2 10.50 0.00 I4.70 10.I 588 0.16 140.6 0.4 10.64 0.00 14.70 9.9 619 0.17 1413 0.5 10.76 0.00 14.70 9.8 656 0.I8 142.0 0.7 10.88 0.00 14.70 9.7

%9 0.27 147.8 2.2 II.99 0.00 I4.70 8.6 1.199 033 151.0 33 12.75 0.00 14.70 7.9 1,200 033 151.0 33 12.75 1.90 16.60 12.4 1,281 036 152.1 3.7 13.01 I.90 I6.60 12.2 1,594 0.44 155 3 5.1 13.92 1.90 I6.60 11.4 1.799 0.50 157.1 5.7 I4.36 1.90 16.60 I 1.0 1,800 0.50 157.I 5.7 I436 3.00 17.70 13.6 1,906 0.53 158.0 6.0 I4.58 3.00 17.70 13.4 2,219 0.62 160.1 7.0 I5.20 3.00 17.70 12.9 2.531 0.70 62.0 7.9 15.80 3.00 17.70 12.4 2,844 0.79 i63.7 8.4 16.22 3.00 17.70 11.9 3.156 0.88 165.4 8.9 16.65 3.00 17.70 11.4 3,469 0.% 166.9 9.5 17.05 3.00 17.70 I 1.0 3.599 1.00 167.4 9.6 17.19 3.00 17.70 10.8 ,

3,600 1.00 167.4 9.6 17.19 5.00 19.70 15.6 3.781 1.05 168.2 9.8 1737 5.00 19.70 15 3 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 9 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: PDN CALC. # IW-734 CHECKED BY:

/u -

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET .ff OF 42 Table 3 RHR Pump whh 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater Fl4.5-17 Eq.11 Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/ LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp ilead Loss Pc DBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) PF) (feet) (psia) (psig) (psia) (fee 0 Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i 4.094 1.14 169.4 10.1 17.66 5.00 19.70 15.0 4,406 1.22 170.4 10.4 17.92 5.00 19.70 14.6 4,719 1.31 1713 10.7 18.14 5.00 19.70 14.4 5,031 1.40 172.2 10.8 1834 5.00 19.70 14.1 5344 1.48 173.0 11.0 18.52 5.00 19.70 13.8 5,656 1.57 173.7 11.1 18.68 5.00 19.70 13.6 5,969 1.66 174.4 11.2 18.83 5.00 19.70 133 5.999 I.67 174.5 II3 18.85 5.00 19.70 133 6.000 1.67 174.5 11 3 18.85 5.00 19.70 13 3 6,281 1.74 175.0 11.4 I8.% 5.00 19.70 13.1 6.594 1.83 175.7 11.5 19.10 5.00 19.70 12.9 6,906 1.92 176.2 11.5 19.19 5.00 19.70 12.7 7,157 1.99 176.7 11.5 19.27 5.00 19.70 12.5 7,188 2.00 176.8 11.5 19.29 5.00 19.70 12.5 7.199 2.00 176.8 II.5 19.29 5.00 19.70 12.5 7,200 2.00 176.8 6.1 17.02 5.00 19.70 12.5 9,033 2.51 178.8 6.2 1736 5.00 19.70 11.7 12,498 3.47 I81.0 6.2 17.72 5.00 19.70 10.9 15,848 4.40 182.0 6.2 17.88 5.00 19.70 10.5 19J25 537 1823 6.1 ._

17.92 5.00 19.70 10.4 22,924 637 182.2 6.1 17.90 5.00 19.70 10.4 Page 10 of 16 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-96 File = NPSH75MM.XLS

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: @l4 CALC,# M-734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 'lG.DEC-98 SHEET M OF 62 Table 3 RHR Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater Fl4.5-17 Eq.1I Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/ LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp Head Loss PcDBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) ('F) (feet) (psis) (Psia) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plottei on Fig i on Fig 2 on F'11 26,735 7.43 181.7 6.2 17.83 5.00 19.70 10.6 30,495 8.47 181.0 6.2 17.73 5.00 19.70 10.9 34,328 9.54 180.1 63 17.60 5.00 19.70 11.2 38,118 10.59 179.0 63 17.45 5.00 19.70 lI.7 42,011 I1.67 177.7 6.3 17.26 5.00 19.70 12.I 45,9I8 12.75 1763 6.4 17.07 5.00 19.70 12.7 49,869 13.85 174.8 6.4 16.86 5.00 19.70 13.2 53,88I I4.97 1733 6.5 16.67 5.00 19.70 13.7 57.599 I6.00 171.9 6.5 16.49 5.00 19.70 14.2 57,600 I6.00 171.9 6.5 16.49 2.50 17.20 8.2 57,880 16.08 171.8 6.5 16.47 2.50 17.20 83 61,998 17.22 1703 6.6 16.29 2.50 17.20 8.8 ,

66,179 1838 168.7 6.7 16.11 2.50 17.20 93 70,369 19.55 167.2 6.7 15.94 2.50 17.20 9.7 74,594 20.72 165.7 6.8 15.78 2.50 17.20 10.2 ,;

78,9I5 21.92 164.2 6.8 15.62 2.50 17.20 10.6 ,

83,272 23.13 162.8 6.9 15.48 2.50 17.20 11.0 86,399 24.00 161.8 7.0 1539 2.50 17.20 I1.2 86,400 24.00 161.8 7.0 1539 2.50 17.20 11.2 87.590 2433 161.4 7.0 1535 2.50 17.20 113 91,959 25.54 160.0 7.1 15.23 2.50 17.20 11 7 ti RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 11 of 16 ,;

CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY: 99ld CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: W REV. 2 DATE So@EC-98 SHEET 57 OF U Table 3 RHR Pump with 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater ;

F14.5 17 Eq. II Eq.12 ,

LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/ LOCA Debris per for Detwis Time Time Tp Head Loss PcDBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) ('F) (feet) (psis) (psig) (psis) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i j

%,315 26.75 158.7 7.1 15.I2 2.50 17.20 12.0 L 100,723 27.98 157.5 7.2 15.02 2.50 17.20 123 105,128 29.20 1563 73 14.92 2.50 17.20 12.6 107,999 30.00 155.5 73 14.86 2.50 17.20 12.8 108.000 30.00 155.5 73 14.86 1.00 15.70 9.3 109,611 30.45 155.1 73 14.83 I.00 15.70 9.4 7 114,124 31.70 154.0 7.4 14.74 1.00 15.70 9.6 118,662 32.% 153.0 7.4 14.67 1.00 15.70 9.8 123,306 34.25 151.9 7.5 14.59 1.00 15.70 10.1 i

127,955 35.54 151.0 7.5 14.53 1.00 15.70 103 132.637 36.84 150.0 7.6 14.47 1.00 15.70 10.5 137,298 38.14 149.0 7.7 14.41 1.00 15.70 10.7 141,980 39.44 148.1 7.7 I435 I.00 15.70 10.9 143.999 40.00 I47.7 7.7 1433 1.00 15.70 11.0 144,000 40.00 147.7 7.7 1433 0.00 14.70 8.6 146,749 40.76 147.1 7.8 1430 0.00 14.70 8.7 151,545 42.10 146.2 7.8 14.25 0.00 14.70 8.9 156333 43.43 1453 7.9 14.19 0.00 14.70 9.1 I6lol57 44.77 144.5 7.9 I4.15 0.00 14.70 9.2 I65,970 46.10 143.7 8.0 14.11 0.00 14.70 9.4 170,814 47.45 142.9 8.0 14.07 0.00 14.70 9.5 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 12 of 16 l

CALCULATION SHEET g PREPARED BY: PDM

{]

CALC. # M-734 CHECKED BY:

REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET 88 OF 62.

Table 3 RHR Pump wkh 5 %/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater F14.5-17 Eq.1 I Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/ LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp IIcad Loss PcDBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) ('F) (feet) (psia) (psig) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i I72,799 48.00 142.6 8.0 14.05 0.00 14.70 9.6 172.800 4 R.00 142.6 8.0 14.05 0.00 14.70 9.6 176,400 49.00 142.2 8.1 14.03 0.00 14.70 9.6 I80,000 50.00 141.7 8.1 14.01 0.00 14.70 9.7 183,600 51.00 1413 8.1 14.00 0.00 14.70 9.8 I87,200 52.00 I40.8 8.2 13.98 0.00 14.70 9.9 190.800 53.00 140.4 8.2 13.96 0.00 I4.70 9.9 194,400 54.00 140.0 8.2 13.94 0.00 14.70 10.0 198,000 55.00 139.5 83 I3.93 0.00 14.70 10.1 ,.

201,600 56.00 I39.1 83 13.91 0.00 14.70 10.2 I' I

205.200 57.00 138.7 83 13.89 0.00 14.70 10.2 208,800 58.00 138.2 8.4 13.87 0.00 14.70 103 212,400 59.00 137.8 8.4 13.86 0.00 14.70 10.4 216,000 60.00 1373 8.4 13.84 0.00 14.70 10.4 2I9,600 61.00 136.9 8.5 13.83 0.00 14.70 10.5 223,200 62.00 136.5 8.5 13.81 0.00 14.70 10.6 226,800 63.00 136.0 8.5 13.79 0.00 I4.70 10.6 230,400 64.00 135.6 8.5 13.78 0.00 14.70 10.7 234,000 65.00 135.2 8.6 13.76 0.00 14.70 10.8 237,600 66.00 134.7 8.6 13.75 0.00 14.70 10.8 241,200 67.00 134 3 8.6 13.73 0.00 14.70 10.9

.i RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 13 of 16 i

. CALCULATION SHEET , PREPARED BY: f]))4 CALC.# M-734 CHECKED BY: __M REV. 2 DATE 10-DEC-98 SHEET 87 OF 62 Table 3 RHR Pump whh 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater F14.5-17 Eq.II Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/ LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp Head Loss Pc DBA FSAR w/Pc Allow (sec) (hour) (*F) (feet) (psia) (psig) (psia) (Feet) h tted htted Norted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i 244,800 68.00 133.8 8.7 13.72 0.00 I4.70 11.0 248,400 69.00 133.4 8.7 13.71 0.00 14.70 11.0 252,000 70.00 I33.0 8.7 13.69 0.00 14.70 11.1 255,600 71.00 132.5 8.8 13.68 0.00 14.70 11.1 259.200 72.00 132.1 8.8 I3.67 0.00 14.70 I1.2 262,800 73.00 13I.9 8.8 13.66 0.00 14.70 11.2 266.400 74.00 131.7 8.8 I3.66 0.00 14.70 IIJ 270,000 75.00 131.5 8.9 13.66 0.00 14.70 11.3 273,600 76.00 131.2 8.9 I3.65 0.00 I4.70 11.3 '

277,200 77.00 13I.0 8.9 I3.65 0.00 I4.70 11.4 280,800 78.00 130.8 8.9 13.64 0.00 14.70 I l.4 284,400 79.00 130.6 8.9 13.64 0.00 14.70 11.4 288,000 80.00 130.4 8.9 13.63 0.00 14.70 1 I.4 29I,600 8I.00 130.2 9.0 13.63 0.00 14.70 11.5 295,200 82.00 129.9 9.0 13.62 0.00 14.70 11.5 298,800 83.00 129.7 9.0 13.62 0.00 14.70 I1.5 302,400 84.00 129.5 9.0 13.61 0.00 14.70 11.6 306,000 85.00 129.3 9.0 13.61 0.00 14.70 11.6 309,600 86.00 129.1 9.0 13.60 0.00 14.70 11.6 313.200 87.00 128.9 9.1 13.60 0.00 I4.70 11.6 316,800 88.00 128.6 9.1 13.59 0.00 14.70 11.7 RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 14 of 16

CALCULATION SHEET

{} % PREPARED BY: PbM CALC,# M-734 CHECKED BY: ._ M REV. 2 DATE 30-DEC-98 SHEET CO OF G2 Table 3 RHR Pump wkh 5%/ Day Leakage Rate - 75'F Seawater FI4.5-17 Eq.II Eq.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Debris w/LOCA Debris per for Debris Time Time Tp HeadIms PcDBA FSAR w/PcAllow (sec) (hour) ('F) (reet) (psia) (psig) (psia) (feet)

Plotted Plotted Plotted on Fig i on Fig 2 on Fig i 320,400 89.00 128.4 9.I 13.59 0.00 14.70 11.7 324,000 90.00 128.2 9.1 I3.58 0.00 I4.70 1I.7 327,600 91.00 128.0 9.I I3.58 0.00 14.70 11.7 331,200 92.00 127.8 9.1 13.57 0.00 14.70 I 1.8 334,800 93.00 127.6 9.2 13.57 0.00 14.70 11.8 338,400 94.00 1273 9.2 13.57 0.00 14.70 11.8 342,000 95.00 127.1 9.2 13.56 0.00 14.70 11.9 345,600 96.00 126.9 9.2 13.56 0.00 14.70 II.9 349,200 97.00 126.7 9.2 13.55 0.00 14.70 11.9 352,800 98.00 126.6 9.2 I3.55 0.00 14.70 I I.9 356,400 99.00 126.4 93 13.55 0.00 14.70 11.9 360.000 100.00 126.2 9.3 13.55 0.00 14.70 12.0 363,600 101.00 126.0 93 13.55 0.00 14.70 12.0 367,200 102.00 125.9 9.3 13.54 0.00 14.70 12.0 370,800 103.00 125.7 93 13.54 0.00 14.70 12.0 374,400 104.00 125.5 93 I3.54 0.00 14.70 12.0 378,000 105.00 125.4 93 13.54 0.00 14.70 12.1 381,600 106.00 125.2 9.4 13.54 0.00 14.70 12.1 385,200 107.00 125.0 9.4 13.53 0.00 14.70 12.1 388,800 108.00 124.9 9.4 13.53 0.00 14.70 12.1 392.400 109.00 124.7 9.4 I3.53 0.00 I4.70 12.I RHR/CS Calc 30-DEC-98 File = NPSH75MM.XLS Page 15 of 16

l. .

CALCULATION SHEET g PREPMMEDBY: M cAtc.e eB734 Cl4ECOGED BY: M .

(V

REV. 2 DATE 30 DEC-es :

SHEET Cl OF U t

Table 3 RRR Pame with 5%/ Day Imakage Rate - 75'F Seurater .

FI43-17 Eq.11 Es.12 LOCA Strainer Pc Allow Margin Detris wtLOCA Debris per forDet:ris Tune Tune Tp Headimes PcDBA F5AR WeAllow ,

i (see) (hour) (T) (feet) (psis) (psis) (psis) (l'e0 e f Plonal Planed Pioned )

on Re i on ng 2 _

en ne l !

396,000 110 00 124.5 9.4 13.33 0.00 14.70 12.2 [

399,600 111.00 I24 3 9.4 13.52 0.00 14.70 12.2 l 403,200 112.00 124.2 9.4 13.52 0.00 14.70 12.2 406,800 113.00 124.0 9.5 13.52 0.00 14.70 12.2 ;

410,400 114.00 123.8 9.5 13.51 0.00 14.70 12.2 [

414,000 115.00 123.7 9.5 13.51 0.00 14.70 123 !

123 i 417.600 116.00 123.5 9.5 13.51 0.00 14.70 42I,209 117.00 1233 9.5 13.50 0.00 14.70 123 [

424,800 Il8m 123.1 9.5 13.50 0.00 14.70 123 l 428,400 l19.00 123.0 9.5 13.49 0.00 I4.70 123 ,

432,000 120.00 122.8 9.5 13.49 0.00 14.70 12.4 ;

518,400 I44.00 120.2 9.7 13.46 0.00 14.70 12.6 !

604,800 168.00 118.2 10.0 13.47 0.00 14.70 12.8 691,200 192.00 116.2 10.2 13.49 0.00 14.70 13.0 14.70 13.2 ;

777,600 216.00 184 3 10.4 13.50 0 00 864,000 240.00 1123 10.6 13.51 0.00 14.70 13.4 l

6 4

i i

Page 18of16 reves c.=: 30.Dec.se rn.-HPsmsw.xtS ll .

CALCULATON SHEET gg PREPARED BY: PDS -

CALC.# M.734 CHECKED BY: M '

REV. 2 DATE 05 JAN 49

("

BHEET 62 OF 6E 1

F. References 1.

BECo Calculation M-897 Rev. 2 "ECCS Strainer Performance Analysis", Duke Engineering Calculation No. 2552.F02-03 Rev. 2, SUDDS/RF # 98-145 Rev. I.

2.

NUREGCR-6224, " Parametric Study of the Potential for BWR ECCS Strainer Blockage Due to LOCA Generated Debris", U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1995.

3. NRC IE Bulletin 96-03 " Potential Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers by Debris in Boiling-Water Reactors".

4. BECo Calculation M-662 Rev. E3 "RHR and Core Spray Pump NPSH and Suction Pressure Drop".

5. BECo Calculation M-748 Rev. O " Containment Temperature & Humidity Conditions and Nitrogen Mass".

6. NRC 1.etter 97.078 " Issuance of Amendment No.173 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-35, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (TAC No. M97789), July 3,1997.

7. GE Report GE-NE-T23-00749-01 " Containment Heatup Analysis with ANS 5.1 Plus 2 Sigma Decay Heat", December 1997 with Transmittal of Data Tables as Attachment, SUDDS/RF # 97-96.

8. FSAR Section 14.5.3 "less of Coolant Accident".

9. FSAR Section 14.5.3.1.3 " Core Standby Cooling System Pump Net Positive Suction i Head". l

10. PNPS Procedure 2.2.19.5 "RHR Modes of Operation for Transients".

G. List of Attachments Attachment 1 = Independent Verification Statement Record (1 page)

CALC M-734 Rev 2 An&ds-G I Page I of 1 Calculation - independent Vertfication Statement Record Calculation # M-734 , Revision # 2 has been independently verified by the following method (s),

as noted below:

Mark each hem yes, no or not applicable (N/A) and initial each item checked by you.

Design Review @ including verification that:

3C0 . Ngn inputs were correctly selected and included in the calculation.

Mfo e# ssumptonsA are adequately described, resonable, and not contrary to FSAR.

fo e/ Input or assumptions requiring confirmation are identified, and if any exist, the calculation has been identified as *Prr "-inary" and a " Finalization Due Date' has been specified.

. D */ Design requirements frorr able codes, standards and regulatory documents are identified and reflected ir .ssign.

M e ' Applicable construction and operating experience was considered in the design.

NO e'The calculation number has been property obtained and entered.

bro e'An appropriate design method or computer code was used.

f0 e'A mathematical check has been performed.

$Me#The output is reasonable compared to the input.

Altomate Calculation O including verification of items under Design Review.

The attomate calculation ( pages)is attached.

Qualification Testing fordesign feature includmg verification of items under Design Review and the following: 1 1

e ' The test was performed in accordance with written test procedures.

Most adverse design conditions were used in the test.

Scaling laws were established and verified and error analyses were performed, if applicable.

. Test acceptance criteria were clearly related to the design calculation.

Test results (documented in ) were reviewed by the calculation Preparer or other cognizant engineer.

Independent Reviewer Comments:

/S/ o_ . - S Indep@ent Reviewer //Dfite Preparer concurrence with findings and comment resolution

/S/ MJ. 0/- 0 8-99 Prepare /or Other Codhizant Engineer NE3.06 Rev 9

I 1/11/99 i l

I l

i BULLETIN 96-03 SUBMITTAL l PILGRIM STATION l l

)

7- ,.

'[... i gn.- S, E

_(9g;'.-,' ,,,-

.- . , , ~,-

, p ,,$

p-" j',/

, a g,h ,

f l,3,:fQgjfQ,,f6Y

, N . s ',s ' -

New ECCS Suction Strainer in Torus - Typical of Two

/- A f

l l

1 l

l

i 1/11/99 l l

INDEX A.

SUMMARY

4 B. DEBRIS GENERATION / TRANSPORT 4 l 1.0 Estimation of Fibrous Insulation Debris Quantities in Suppression Pool . 5 1.1 Method for Estimating Potential Break Locations 5 1.2 Basis for Determining Shape / Size ZOI Each Potential Break Location 7 1.3 Basis for Determining the Quantity of Insulation Within Each ZOI 8

' l.4 Method for Estimating the Amount of ZOI Insulation Destroyed and Transported to Pool 8 1.5 Method for Performing Integrated ZOI/ Debris Generation Calculation 9 2.0 Estimation of RMI Foil Debris Quantities in Suppression Pool 11 3.0 Estimation of Suppression Pool Sludge Quantities 11 4.0 Estimation of Other Debris Quantities in Suppression Pool 12 5.0 Analysis Input Parameters 12 5.1 Fibrous Insulation Materials, Quantities and Locations 12 5.2 Weld Locations for All High Pressure Piping 13 5.3 Elevation of Lowest Drywell Grating 14 5.4 Composite Destruction /Fransport Factors for Pilgrim Insulation 14 5.5 Characteristics of Reactor Vessel RMI Insulation 15 5.6 Sludge Generation Rate (Dry Weight) 15 5.7 Dimensions of Reactor Vessel _for Calculating Vessel Surface Area 15 5.8 URG Bounding Particulate Debris Estimate for BWRs 16 5.9 Pilgrim Fuel Cycle 16 5.10 Densities for Pilgrim Fibrous Insulation Materials 16 !

6.0 Assumptions and Limitations 17 j 7.0 Calculations 19 !

7.1 Fibrous Insulation Debris Source Term to Suppression Pool 19

, 7.2 RMI and Fibrous Insulation Debris Source Term to Suppression Pool !

from Reactor Vessel 20 l l 7.2.1 Vessel Surface Area 20 l

l 7. 2.2 Surface Area / Volume of Nukon Insulation on Vessel 20 7.2.3 Surface Area of RMI on Vessel 21 7.2.4 Nukon RV Nozzle Insulation Volume 21 7.2.5 Total Volume of Nukon Insulation Transported-Break Inside Bioshield Wall 22 7.3 Sludge Quantity in Suppression Pool (max, dry wt.) 22

- 7.4 Other Debris Source Term to Suppression Pool 23

. 7.4.1 Dirt / Dust 23 7.4.2 Rust Flakes 23 7.4.3 Paint Chips 23 8.0 Results Criteria and Conclusions - 24 8.1 Results 24 8.2 Conclusions 24 2

. . - - .-=

l 1/11/99 C. CALCULATION OF STRAINER HEAD LOSS 26 1.0 Calculation Methods 26 1.1 Blockage 2.5R Computer Code 26 1.2 Head Loss Due to Fibrous Insulation 27 2.0 Design Inputs 30 2.1 Strainer Data 30 2.2 Flow Conditions 30 2.3 Debris Quantities 31 2.4 Debris Characteristics 32 2.5 Considerations in Estimating Head Loss 32 2.5.1 Debris Sedimentation 32 2.5.2 Debris Filtration 33 3.0 Assumptions 34 4.0 Calculation Results 34 4.1 Break Outside the Reactor Shield Wall 35 4.1.1 Calculation for the Full Strainer Area 35 4.1.2 Base Case for the Circumscribed Strainer Surface Area 36 4.1.3 Base Case Calculation Results 36 4.1.4 Effect of the Interference Between the Debris Bed and Pool Structures 37 4.2 Break Inside the Reactor Shield Wall 39 4.3 Comparison with NPSH Margin 42 5.0 Parametric Analy:;is 43 5.1 Effect of the Timing of the ECCS Flow Reduction 44 5.2 Effect of the Quantity of Paint Chips 45 6.0 Summary and Conclusions 46 D. STRAINER DESIGN / STRUCTURAL EVALUATIONS 47 1.0 Summary 47 2.0 Calculation Methodology 48 2.1 Load Definitions 48 2.2 Load Calculation-Strainer Beam 48 2.3 Structural Evaluation Strainer Beam 48 2.4 Stacked Disk Design / Structural Evaluation 49 2.5 Strainer End Support Structural Evaluation 49 2.6 Ring Girder Mounting Brackets 49 2.7 Evaluation of Strainer Loads on Torus Structure 50 2.8 Evaluation of Branch Piping Assembly 50 2.9 As-Built Evaluation 50 E. REFERENCES 51 ATTACHMENTS

1. Cutaway Showing Strainer Assembly Bottom of Torus Bay 4

2. Strainer Location Plan 3

l .___ __ _

l l

1/11/99 BULLETIN %-03 SUBMITTAL - PILGRIM STATION 1

A.

SUMMARY

l 1

This submittal is the fm' al response to NRC Bulletin 96-03 and demonstrates compliance i with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.82 Rev 2.

Due to safety concerns raised in Bulletin 96-03, Pilgrim installed two large, passive ECCS suction strainers in RFO 11 (Completed Spring 97). The strainers and the effects on the Mark I Containment were evaluated per the Mark I Containment Criteria in l NUREG 0661. Design, fabrication, examination and installation of the strainers was per l the requirements of ASME III B&PV Code Subsection NF 1977 Edition through Summer 1978 Addenda. The strainers and suction piping were fabricated from 304/304L stainless l

steel and the support brackets were fabricated from carbon steel. Attachment 1 is a 3D cutaway of a single torus bay showing the new strainer with the attached suction piping. i This is typical of the strainer installation for two bays. Attachment 2 shows the new i i strainer locations in a plan view of the torus. Subsequent to the strainer installation a

! debris generation /transpon and strainer head loss analysis was performed per the requirements of RG 1.82 Rev 2. Results of the analysis indicated that the required pump NPSH was greater than the maximum licensed containment pressure of 21/2 psi. A maximum of 5 psi of overpressure is required for the worst case post LOCA debris loading. The required overpressure for pump NPSH requirements is less than the calculated available containment pressure from the start of a DBA LOCA until the torus pressure decays to atmospheric pressure. The NRC was notified and a Licensing Amendment to credit additional overpressure is in process. Figure 4-4 page 43 shows the strainer Head Loss and NPSH Margin vs. Time.

H. DEBRIS GENERATION / TRANSPORT The debris generation and transport analysis has been perfcrmed using the guidance in R.G.1.82 as implemented by the BWROG Utility Resolution Guidelines (URG).

Each of these debris types was addressed in the calculations.

Fibrous debris from NUKON@ insulation installed on piping and the reactor vessel,

Metallic foil debris from insulation installed on the reactor vessel,

Suppression pool sludge.

Paniculate debris (e.g., paint chips, dirt, rust) and

Other miscellaneous debris.

This section summarizes how the debris loading for the strainers was developed. Details of the analysis are in Reference Ib).

4

_. ~ . .. ._ _ _ _ _ .._. _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

l j 1/11/99 1.0 Estimation of Fibrous Insulation Debris Ouantities in Suppression Pool l Calculation of the maximum quantities of insulation material that may be destroyed and transponed to the suppression pool following a postulated LOCA requires four distinct steps:

1. Determine the locations of potential breaks in high energy piping within the Pilgrim drywell that could result in insulation debris generation.

2. For each break location identified in Step 1, estimate the shape and size of the Zone of Influence (ZOI)' for each type of insulation material installed in the Pilgrim drywell.

3. Determine the quantity of insulation located within each ZOI defined in Step 2 (i.e.,

each insulation material for each break location). For fibrous insulation, the amount of insulation within the ZOI should be specified in terms of the quantities located above versus below the elevation of the lowest drywell grating.

4. For each debris quantity calculated in Step 3, apply a relevant destmetion and transport factor to estimate the amount of debris that would be transported to the suppression pool. I i

The process for performing each of these steps is outlined in Sections 1.1 through 1.4. I Section 1.5 describes the method for performing an integrated calculation to accomplish each of the four steps.

Once the calculations were complete, the debris quantities were then examined to j determine the " worst case" break locations and corresponding debris quantities. These j are the break locations that result in the largest suppression pool debris source terms, and l therefore would result in the largest strainer head loss. The controlling break for Pilgrim was the 28" A Loop Recirculation suction line.

Pilgrim has some fibrous insulation installed in the space between the reactor vessel and the biological shield wall. Therefore, there is a fibrous debris source term for breaks occurring inside the bioshield wall.

i 1.1 Methodfor Determining Potential fireak Locations 1

The location at which a pipe break occurs has a significant effect on the amount of insulation debris potentially generated that could subsequently affect ECCS strainer l performance. Sections 1.1 and 1.2 provide the basis for selection of break locations for the Pilgrim debris generation analysis.

' The URG defines the ZOI as "the zone within which the break jet would have sumcient energy to generate transportable debris."

5 l

1 1/11/99 The URG states that "it is not necessary to evaluate all possible pipe break locations but rather a sufficient number of breaks of different sizes and locations to reasonably assure acceptable ECCS performance under the most severe conditions." In addition, Reg.

Guide 1.82 provides guidance on consideration of break locations, stating that "As a minimum, the following postulated break locations should be considered.

1. Breaks on the main steam, feedwater, and recirculation lines with the largest amount of potential debris within the expected zone ofinfluence,

2. Large breaks with two or more different types of debris within the expected zone of influence,

3. Breaks in areas with the most direct path between the drywell and wetwell, and

4. Medium and large breaks with the largest potential particulate debris to insulation ratio by weight.

Finally, historical evidence and piping failure analyses have shown that failure of high energy piping would most likely occur at high stress and fatigue locations, such as the terminal ends of a piping system and other weld locations Considering the guidance above, all weld locations on high energy piping in the Pilgrim drywell are considered potential break locations. The manner in which this satisfies each of the Reg. Gnide 1.82 requirements (listed above) is discussed below.

1. Rec. Guide 1.82 Break Location Guidance. Item No.1.

All weld locations on the main steam, feedwater, and recirculation lines were identified in the design input that was the basis for the weld locations considered as break locations for the analysis. Calculating debris generation for a LOCA jet originating at each weld location guarantees several analyses are performed for each line, and the largest amount of potential debris is estimated.

2. Rec. Guide 1.82 Break Location Guidance. Item No. 2.

Break locations inside the bioshield wall were considered where both Nukon and RMI are present.

3. Rec. Guide 1.82 Break Location Guidance. Item No. 3.

No credit is taken for debris holdup for insulation that is located below the lowest drywell grating and is within the ZO! for a given break (regardless of where the actual break occurs). That is, the composite destruction /transpon factor for fibrous insulation located below the lowest grating contains a transpon fraction of 1.0.

Certain breaks considered are, in fact, located below the lowest drywell grating.

Given the transport factor of 1.0, these breaks are, in effect, those with "the most direct path between the drywell and the wetwell."

i i 4. Rec. Guide 1.82 Break Location Guidance, item No. 4.

l Only welds located on large diameter (i.e.,12 inches or greater) high energy pipes were explicitly considered in the analyses. Considering breaks on only large diameter 6

1 1/11/99 I

piping does not imply that breaks may not occur in small/ medium diameter piping.

However, the calculations are intended to identify the limiting (i.e., maximum) quantity of debris that may be generated from any potential pipe break inside the drywell. The methodology used implies, and the results show, that the quantity of debris generated generally decreases as the diameter of the broken pipe decreases2, Therefore, consideration of breaks in small/ medium diameter pipes is not considered necessary to quantify maximum debris valoes. However, the effects of a small/ medium break that generate that " largest potential particulate debris to insulation ratio by weight" was considered in the strainer head loss analysis. This was accomplished by calculating the " worst case" head loss condition for Ober quantities that are less than the maximum calculated fiber quantity, given a fixed amount of particulate debris (i.e., the maximum particulate debris quantities). No specific break location for generating this fiber quantity was identined since this quantity could ,

occur given a smaller break oLr given lower debris generation from a large break (e.g.,

l a non-guillotine or partially restrained break in a large pipe). l 1.2 Basisfor Determining Shape and Size of ZOIfor Each Potential Break Incation The ZOI for each break location is characterized based on the URG " Method 3" approach, Break Specific Analysis using Break-Dependent Zones ofinfluence. The steps :

involved in this characterization, taken directly from the URG (Section 3.2.1.2.3.3) are listed below. Following each step are comments relating to the application of this method to the Pilgrim analysis.

1. Identify the type, locations, and amounts of each material of interest within the drywell.

2. Determine the dynamic pressure (Pam) at which destruction is assumed to occur for each size pipe on which each material ofinterest is installed in the drywell'. This step was performed as part of the integrated ZOI/ Debris Generation analysis.

3. For each break to be evaluated, perform the following analysis:

a) Determine whether the break results in a single. jet or a double jet.

b) Determine whether the break is restrained or unrestrained, and whether the i pipe contains saturated steam or saturated water.

c) For each restrained break, determine the radial offset and axial separation. If the radial offset and axial separation are not known, the break may be assumed .

to be unrestrained. I d) For all unrestrained breaks, the radial offset should be assumed > than 3D/2.

2 The results show that the limiting break is located at a weld on a 28" pipe. By not considering breaks on pipes less than 12"in diameter, one is ignoring potential break locations with ZOI's that are more than a factor of ten smaller in volume.

' The standard Method 3 ZO! analysis described in the URG would have one calculate the destruction pressure for the largest pipe on which each material of interest is installed in the drywell. However. this is considered overly conservative, and as suggested in the URG, Method 3 is refined by considering actual target pipe diameter when determining the destruction pressure for a given insulated pipe.

7

1/11/99 e) For each break analyzed, calculate the volume of the ZOI for each material of interest. This calculation is based on a correlation given in the URG that is a function of: the radial offset and axial separation of the break, whether the break effluent is steam or water and the break size (i.e., pipe diameter).

f) For each material of interest, calculate the radius of a sphere which encloses the same volume as calculated in (e) above.

g) For breaks which result in double jets, assume a spherical ZOI centered on the break with a radius equal to that calculated in (f) above.

h) For breaks which result in single jets, assume a hemispherical ZOI centered on the break with a radius equal to that calculated in (f) above.

The following assumptions are made for this step:

All breaks were conservatively assumed to result in a double jet, thereby maximizing the debris generated by a break at any given location.

All breaks were conservatively assumed to be unrestrained, thereby maximizing the debris generated by a break at any given location.

The calculations to complete this step were performed as part of the integrated ZO!/ Debris Generation analysis. See the discussion in Section 1.5 for details.

1.3 Basisfor Determining the Quantity ofInsulation Located Within Each ZOI The quantity of insulation located within each ZOI is determined based on the URG

" Method 3" approach, Break Specific Analysis using Break-Dependent Zones of Influence. The steps required to perform this analysis are listed below. Application of this method to the Pilgrim analysis is discussed in Section 1.5.

1. For each break location, apply the ZOI for each material type (characterized in Section 1.2) to the centerline of the pipe.

2. For each material ofinterest, determine the total volume of material that is (a) located above the elevation oflowest drywell grating and (b) within the ZOI.

3. For each material of interest, determine the total volume of material that is (a) located below the elevation of lowest drywell grating and (b) within the ZOI.

1.4 Methodfor Estimating Amount of ZOIInsulation Destroyed and Transported to Pool Estimation of insulation destruction and subsequent debris transport from the drywell to the suppression pool as a result of a LOCA is based on guidance presented in the URG (Section 3.2.31. The URG suggests composite destruction / transport factors, which are insulation material-denendent, and for fibrous insulation, are dependent on whether the insulation is generated above or below the lowest level of drywell grating. Given these dependencies, the composite destruction / transport factor is multiplied by the amount of 8

i l

l ,

i !

L 1/11/99 l insulation material determined to be within the ZOI (See Section 1.3) for each postulated break location. The resulting values are the estimated suppression pool debris source terms for each break location. ,

I The calculations to complete this step are performed as pan of the integrated ZOI/ Debris Generation analysis. See the discussion in Section 1.5 for details. ;

f 1.5 Methodfor Performing Integrated Z01/ Debris Generation Calculation The calculations required to characterize the ZOI for each potential break location, estimate the amount of fibrous / insulation within that ZOI, and calculate the quantity of i fibrous / debris that would subsequently be transported to the suppression pool are based on the methods described in Sections 1.2 through 1.4 above. The PIPES 2.0 computer code was used to perform these calculations for fibrous insulation. An AutoCAD model which represents the Pilgrim drywell including the drywell shell, reactor vessel, bioshield wall, piping / pipe welds and insulation was used as input into the PIPES code.

Some fibrous insulation exists in the Pilgrim drywell for which the exact location is not included in the AutoCAD@ model (However, the type, location, and auantity of this insulation is well documented). The method for generating a conservative estimate for the amount of this insulation destroyed and transponed to the suppression pool is described following the PIPES 2.0 discussion.

PIPES 2.0 CALCULATIONS The input required to perform the PIFES 2.0 calculations are described in the code User's Guirle. The input parameters to be defined and a description are listed below.

Reactor Type . Indicator for drywell type being considered. Pilgrim is a Mark-I.

(MARK-I)

Type

Indicator for analysis method to be used for ZOI calculations. As described in Sections 1.1-1.4, a modified URG Method 3 is used for the Pilgrim analysis. (URG) e Break-loc-file e Indicator name of the file containing break location information (PILGRIM.BRK)

Floor e Elevation of lowest drywell grating in inches. For Pilgrim, this value is (263.75) e DX e length of insulation pipe (i.e., target) segments for calculating debris quantities e Nfoils e Number of foils for each type of RMI. This is irrelevant for Pilgrim, since RMI debris generation was not estimated for l Pilgrim using the PIPES 2.0 code. See Section 2.0 for discussion of RMI debris generation at Pilgrim.

l 9

1/11/99 Break I.ocation Input File: " PILGRIM.BRK" ;

j Using the information from the Auto CAD model the break locations to be analyzed are L

specified. The file, used for the analysis was created using actual pipe diameters. It should be noted that the effluent type (i.e., water vs. steam) for each break location is ,

specified in this file. All breaks have a water effluent, except for the main steam hnes l

Insulation Specification Input File: " PIPES 2. NET" This input file characterizes the piping network containing fibrous insulation fc4 hignm. '

The input file format for one pipe segment, as specified in the PIPES User's Guide, is j shown below. )

l For Pipes.

l l Description of Parameter Example Line Identifier (Recire Riser) 12-RLPZ-EA3-l_2 Pipe Outside Diameter (inches) 12.75 Insulation Type '(Must be one defined in PIPES 2.0 NUKON Reference Manual)

Insulation Thickness (inches) 3 Number of XYZ Coordinates Specifying Segment End 3 l Points XYZ Coordinates for Segment Endpoints (inches)* 995.6803 745.3888 487.7946 995.6803 745.3888 655.1916 963.6143 763.9021 655.1916 The files used for the Pilgrim analysis were created using the insulation inventory for ,

H Pilgrim as a starting point. Each insulated pipe was broken into " straight line" segments, l and the data required (shown above) were entered in the proper format. For quality l l assurance purposes, each entry in the PIPES 2. NET file was checked and independently l checked against the insulation inventory for accuracy.

i ADDITION OF FIBROUS DEBRIS OUANTITY FOR INSULATION OF SMALL ,

BORE PIPING !

As discussed above, some fibrous insulation on small bore piping exists in the Pilgnm ;

drywell for which the exact location is not modeled. However, the locations of the small

l. bore piping insulation was determined to be either above or below the lowest elevation i grating. It was then assumed that these locations could potentially be all located within a ,

l large pipe break ZOI. Hence all the insulation volume on small bore piping not modeled

-in AutoCAD@ was conservatively assumed to be within the ZOI. For the insulation material that is located above the lowest elevation grating a destruction / transport fraction

of 0.28 was applied to the total volume above the grating. For the insulation material that f

d The origin of the coordinate system used in the PIPES code is arbitrary. However, the coordinates must be in inches and must be consistent between the PIPES 2. NET file and the PILGRIM.BRK file. For Pilgrim, these coordinates were defined by DE&S.

r 10

1/11/99 is located below the lowest elevation grating a destmetion/transpon fraction of 0.78 was applied to the total volume below the grating.

2.0 Estimation of RMI Foil Debris Ouantities in Suppression Pool There are two major types of insulation debris that could contribute to suction strainer head loss following a LOCA; fibrous and RMI insulation. This section describes the method used to estimate foil debris quantities transponed to the Pilgrim suppression pool l following a LOCA.

l The insulation inventory does not indicate the presence of any RMI in the Pilgrim drywell ;

except for the insulation on the reactor vessel. Since the biological shield wall would provide shielding from the pressure wave created by a LOCA outside the wall, the RMI foil debris generated for breaks outside the wall is zero.

The only postulated break locations that could produce RMI foil debris would be those that could occur inside the shield wall. It is assumed, for a break located inside the shield wall, that the Z01 encompasses the entire volume within the shield wall. Therefore, all of the reactor vessel RMI is considered within the ZOI. To estimate the total foil surface area for the foils on the vessel, the reactor vessel boundary in the Pilgrim AutoCAD@

model was used. The surface area of the vessel was calculated and was multiplied by the number of foils in the RMI. This surface area is then multiplied by the composite ,

destruction / transport factor for RMI to obtain the estimated RMI foil debris quantity in !

the suppression pool for LOCAs occurring inside the biological shield wall.

It should be noted that the destruction /transpon factors used from the URG are those determined to be applicable to breaks outside the biological shield wall. There are no data available to quantify destmetion/ transport for breaks inside the shield wall.

However, given the tortuous pathway required to transport debris out of the annular region between the vessel and bioshield wall, through the drywell, down the vents and into the suppression pool, it is expected that the values used are extremely conservative.

This is especially true for a small or intermediate break LOCA. In the case of the Pilgrim l layout, the only pathway for transport is through 8" vent elbows from the annulus region into the area inside the reactor vessel pedestal and out through the reactor pedestal door into onto the drywell floor. The reactor nozzle penetration annulus area is blocked, and the top of the bioshield wall is at el 81'- 6". Most major piping that passes through the bioshield wall is at 55' el and below. Steam piping is above the bioshield wall. The only

! large piping (12" and >) is the 12" feedwater piping at el 77'.

3.0 Es'.imation of Suppression Pool Sludge Ouantity The sludge generation rate is conservatively estimated based on measurement of sludge removed during a recent toms cleaning at Pilgrim. This cleaning removed sludge from the entire torus. The Ibm of sludge removed is converted to a generation rate by dividing 11

1/11/99 the sludge quantity by years of operation since the last torus cleaning. ,

i Additional amounts of sludge were added to ensure a conservative sludge estimate. Two specific reasons were postulated for requiring an additional amount of sludge in the debris source term:

sludge that may not be completely removed during cleaning, and

the potential for increased sludge generation rates as the plant ages.

4.0 Estimation of Other Debris Ouantities in SuDDression Pool The BWROG has developed values, as reported in the URG, for particulate debris t quantities that are held to be conservative estimates of debris generated during a LOCA in !

any existing BWR 5.0 Analysis Input Parameters The following sections contain all design input necessary to calculate the suppression ,

pool debris source term following a LOCA inside the Pilgrim drywell.

5.1 Fibrous Insulation Materials, Quantities and Locations (Locations Noted in AutoCAD@)

A complete inventory of thermal insulation, with the exception of reactor vessel !

insulation, installed in the Pilgrim drywell was developed. This inventory included insulation materials, the pipes on which the material was installed, the linear length of insulated pipe, the insulation thickness, and references to engineering drawings for each j insulated pipe. This information, along with the referenced drawings, was then used to create an AutoCAD@ model of drywell insulation This model identifies the exact locations of all fibrous insulation within the drywell. For each insulated pipe the insulation type, insulation thickness, pipe outer diameter, and exact pipe routing was i included in the model. This information was used to perform the analysis described in Sections 1.0 and 7.1. An example of the insulation data on routed piping in the AutoCAD@ model is shown in Table 5-1. Note that the locations of each piping segment, used to create the PIPES 2. NET input file can be found in the AutoCAD@ model calculation.

12

1 1/11/99 Table 51 Insulation on Routed Piping in AutoCAD@ model AutoCAD Laycr insulabon Drawing Reference Drawings Pipe oD Nukon Desenpuon (in) Insulation Dickness 28-RLPZ-EA3-1.1 M36A14 Shi & 2 MIEA3 Shl MIEA4 Sh2 28 3 28" Insulauon Recirc imp A 28-RLPZ-EA31 3 M36A13 Shi & 2 MIEA3 Shl, MIEA4 Shl 28 3 28" Insulanon Recirc loop H 22 RLPZ EA3-l 1 M36Al4 Shi & 2 MIEA3 Shl. MIEA4 Sh2 22 3 22" Insulanon Recirc loop A 22-RLPZ-EA3 l_3 M36A13 Shl & 2 MIEA3 Shl, MIEA4 Shi 22 3 22" insulanon Recire Loop H 22-RLPZ-EA3 l_4 M36A13 Shi & 2 MIEA3 Shl, MIEA4 Shl 22 4 22" insulauon Recirc loop B 12-RLPZ-EA3-l.1 M36A14 Shi & 2 MIEA3 Shl, MIEA4 Sh2 12.75 3 12" Insulanon Rectre imp A The pump insulation was modeled by considering that the pump bowl was cylindrical, in actuality the pump bowl is toroidal in nature, the assumption that the bowl is cylindrical is more conservative for calculating volume ofinsulation. Drawings showed that the diameter of the pump bowl was 7' and the pumps were represented as a 7' cylinder with a height of 31/2'. Thus, in the PIPES 2. NET file, the pumps were modeled as a line segment with the coordinates noted above, having a diameter of 84" with an insulation thickness of 3" and a height of 42".

The AutoCAD@ model and documentation did not include exact locations of most small bore piping containing NUKON@ insulation. For these pipes, the AutoCAD@ model did not route piping, but the documentation included conservative estimates of insulation within the ZOI for several of the anticipated limiting break locations. The total small bore estimated volume is 127 ft' above the lower grating and 9 ft3 below the lower grating.

5.2 Weld Locations for All High Pressure Piping With Diameter 212" Weld locations for all high pressure piping with a diameter greater than or equal to 12" were' defined in the AutoCAD@ model documentation. An example of this information is shown in Table 5-2.

13

1/11/99 l

Table 5-2 Weld Locations for High Pressure Piping With Diameter 212" i

'xxz' lbgh Energy Break tocations Weld tocation No. 1Jnes Dia. (in.) X Y Z l I 'l2-FWZZ-540-l' 12.75 936.59 936.59 923.50 l

15 '18-FWZZ-538-l' 18 909.00 572.98 483.00 57 '20-Ms AZ-005-l* 20 986.40 885.30 1059.71 95 '20-MsDZ-005 l' 20 728.61 578.64 303.08 i

% '12-RLPZ EA3-l_l' 12.75 910.10 710.39 655.19 97 '12-RLPZ-EA3-l_l' 12.75 919.62 693.91 655.19 133 '22-RLPZ-EA3-l_l' 22 1018 16 857.37 510.50 l 135 '22-RLPZ-EA3 l_l' 22 977.02 719.02 510.32 1 140 '28-RLPZ-EA3-1 I' 28 837.00 619.25 408.70 141 '28-RLPZ EA31_I' 28 837.00 619.25 325.20 177 18 RHRA-HA4-l_l' 18 1147.88 743.26 288.19 183 '18-RHRB-HA6-l' 18 543.86 921.55 288.11 190 '20-RHRo-HA7 l' 20 837.00 598.82 430.51 5.3 Elevation of Lowest Drywell Grating ,

The elevation of the lowest drywell grating, 21'- 11.75" (263.75"), was included in the ,

documentation for the Pilgrim Insulation Inventory /AutoCAD@ model.

5.4 Composite Destruction / Transport Factors for Pilgrim Insulation Composite destmetion/ transport factors for insulation located within the ZOI are taken directly from the guidance presented in the URG [BWROG,1996 (Pg. 83-84)] (except for l

breaks inside the bioshield wall):

NUKON@: 0.78 (insulation below lowest grating and outside the bioshield wall) 0.28 (insulation above lowest grating and outside the bioshield wall) 0.10 (insulation inside the bioshield wall)'

Transco RMI: 0.10' 5

%e NUKON@ insulation installed on the reactor vessel, encompasses the entire circumferential area of the vessel in cenain locations. Derefore a break at one nozzle location is not anticipated to impact NUKON@ insulation at a location 180* from the break point. Thus, only 25% of the total NUKON@ and RMI insulation is assumed to be destroyed from one break location. In addition to this destruction fraction, the transport fraction is assumed to be 40% of the fraction destroyed (fromNUREG/CR-6369 " transportable debris"). Dat is to say 40% of the destroyed material will b transported through a tortuous pathway, and be deposited on the drywell floor available for transport to the suppression pool. No additional transport l fraction is applied once 6e material has reached the drywell floor. It is then assumed that 100% of this material goes to the suppression pool. He overall combined destruction / transport fraction for NUKON@ in I the bioshield area is therefore,0.10. No information is provided to substantiate this fraction, however given i the shielding capabilities of the vessel and shield wall, and the tortuous pathway to the drywell, these values j do not appear to be non-conservative.

14

l l

1/11/99 l

5.5 Characteristics of Reactor Vessel RMI Insulation The insulation located on the Pilgrim reactor vessel is Transco RMI with 1.0 mil Al foils ,

' The insulation on the vessel skirt has RMI with 9 foils (1 ply). The insulation on the upper head is 12 ply, and on the shell it is 10 ply. Thus, since the shell comprises most of the area a value of 10 ply will be used.

5.6 Sludge Generation Rate (Dry Weight)

The current estimated sludge generation rate for Pilgrim, which is based on measurements following torus cleaning during February,1997, is 230.6 lbm (dry) / cycle The rate is based on information that indicates a sludge generation rate of 115.3 pounds per year (dry weight). The Technical Specifications for Pilgrim Nuclear Station indicate that the Pilgrim Refueling Interval shall be at least once every 24 months. Thus, using the sludge generation rate of 115.3 pounds per year would yield 230.6 pounds per cycle of sludge.

Due to plant aging issues, and since not all of the sludge may have been recovered during >

the sludge removal process, the sludge cycle generation rate will be increased to 250 I pounds per cycle. This rate is 100 pounds lower than the recommended BWROG URG 1 sludge mass, however, due to the aggressive sludge removal program at Pilgrim, it I warrants using the actual plant value of 250 pounds per cycle.

For head loss calculations which assume that torus desludging only occurs on a 4 year cycle (i.e. every other refueling cycle), the sludge generation rate over a four year period would thus be 500 lbm (dry). For purposes of head loss calculations only, a value of 500 lbm. (dry) will be used.

l l

5.7 Dimensions of Reactor Vessel for Calculating Vessel Surface Area i The outer dimensions of the reactor vessel were obtained from the drawings and are as i shown in the sketch below Vessel Represented !

in Cyhndncal ! A Values l

Height 66' i

i V l !

l Radius =10 48' 15 l

1/11/99 4

5.8 URG Bounding Particulate Debris Estimates for BWRs The BWROG has developed values, as reported in the URG, for drywell paniculate debris quantities that are held to be conservative estimates of debris generated during a ,

LOCA in any existing BWR. These values will be used as the starting point for defining Pilgrim particulate debris estimates. They are as follows:

Dirt / Dust: 150lbm [BWROG,1996 (Pg. 53)]

Rust Flakes: 50lbm[BWROG,1996 (Pg.57)]

Qualified Inorganic Zine Top Coated with Epoxy: 85 lbm [BWROG,1996 (Pg.58)]6 Unqualified Inorganic Zine Top Coated with Epoxy: 85 lbm [BWROG,1996 (Pg. 62)]'

5.9 Pilgrim Fuel Cycle Pilgrim is on a 24 month cycle.

5.10 Densities for Pilgrim Fibrous Insulation Materials NUKON@ 2.4 lb/ft 3 l

For purposes of this calculation the quahlied coating system in Pilgrim is assumed to be IOZ with epoxy.

There are some unqualified coatings also in containment.

' The URG states that a potential source of latent debris is unqualified or indeterminate coatings. No j- specific information was provided with regard to how much unqualined coatings are in the Pilgrim drywell.

For purposes of this calculation it will be assumed that 85 lbm. of unqualified coatings are transported to the suppression pool. The URG provides no specific value for unqualified coatings since licensees are to determine if coatings of indeterminate quality or unqualified are present.

16

i I

1/11/99 6.0 Asst 3MvrIONS ann LIMITATIONS

1. The postulated break for calculating the fibrous debris source term is assumed to be a completely unrestrained double jet, thereby maximizing the size of the ZOI. This conservatively maximizes the debris generation estimate for input to the strainer head i loss calculations.

! 2. Due to the relatively small free volume inside the biological shield wall, it is assumed that the ZOI from a break inside the shield wall would encompass the entire volume between the reactor vessel and the wall itself for RMI debris generation calculations.

3. The fibrous insulation values from piping outside of the bioshield were increased by )

3% to account for valve body insulation. This value has been validated for a different Mark I BWR plant [ Detroit Edison.1998].

4. The fibrous debris generation calculations are dependent on how the insulation materials are attached to piping. Since the fiber insulation is attached with Velcro straps, no reduction in material destruction has been credited for more robust attachment mechanisms, such as "Sure-Hold" Bands.

5. For the purposes of identifying a reasonable but conservative value of generated insulation debris, it is assumed that suction strainer head loss increases with i increasing insulation volume (fiber NUKON@ insulation) or surface area (RMI).

Therefore, when the term " conservative" is used in this note with respect to the ,

quantity of insulation debris, it implies the maximum quantity of any given range of ;

values.

6. For breaks located outside the biological shield wall, shielding of insulation by structures (e.g., the shield wall) from the break is not considered. Such shielding would result in a reduction in size of the ZOI. Therefore, this assumption conservatively maximizes debris generation for a given break.

7. One type of Transco RMI is installed at Pilgrim; the RMI contains 1 mil Al foils.

Therefore, all RMI will be treated as if it were 1 mil Al. In addition, the type of RMI is conservatively assumed to be Diamond Power MIRROR @ with standard banding; this is the RMI with the lowest destruction pressure listed in the URG.

8. It is assumed that the RMI thickness of a Transco RMI cassette is between 3.04.0 inches and that the maximum number of foils in an RMI cassette at Pilgrim is 12.

Ilowever, that is for the upper head area only. The shell area which comprises most of the vessel area, has 10 foils. The bottom head area has 9 foils. A value of 10 foils will be used for a 3.5 inch thick cassette

9. Documentation for Pilgrim indicates that portions of the reactor vessel are insulated with RMI. As built drawings for the Reactor Vessel Insulation were used to estimate 17 i

l 1/11/99 l 1

l the surface area of the insulation. The number of foils of RMI was not specified. The thickness of insulation however, was specified as 3.5 inches. RMI on the Pilgrim reactor vessel was Transco RMI with I mil Al foils based on drawing information.

10.The amount of unqualified coatings transported to the suppression pool is 85 lbm.

The value for IOZ coating system with epoxy is assumed to be present as a qualified coating system. The amount of paint debris assumed to be transported to the !

suppression pool from qualified paint sources is the most conservative value )

recommended in the URG (85 lbm.).

I1. Dirt and Dust values were taken from the URG. Thus, it is assumed that the dirt and dust values used are representative for Pilgrim station.

I

12. Sludge buildup is assumed to be linear and can be estimated by dividing the dry mass removed from the pool by the service interval.

13.It is assumed that the insulation thickness of NUKON@ installed on the reactor i recirculation pumps is 3 inches. I 14.Not all of the welds on piping 12" and above were identified in the AutoCAD@

model. It was found that there are some shop welds on Feedwater piping that are not !

listed on fabrication isometrics, but do in fact exist (based on ISI isometrics). Also a i few welds on the Main Steam lines (upper elevation with low piping concentration) l were not located on BECO isometrics. However, it should be noted that although this !

weld information is not provided, this does not invalidate the calculation performed herein. The most limiting weld locations for debris generation in BWR plants have not been on Feedwater piping. This piping has a smaller diameter than more limiting locations such as Reactor Recirculation or Main Steam lines (Pilgrim Feedwater 18" maximum diameter, Reactor Recirculation 28" maximum diameter, Main Steam 20" maximum diameter). Because of the smaller diameter of the Feedwater piping, the zone of influence for assessment of debris generation is smaller, and thus, smaller volumes of debris have been noted both in this calculation and other plants. The Reactor Recirculation line limiting break was noted to encompass most of the drywell and thus, encompasses other break locations. Not including a few Main Steam welds in a short section of pipe near the reactor nozzles does not affect this calculation either, because the Pilgrim plant the Reactor Recirculation lines have a larger diameter than the Main Steam lines (28" versus 20"). The zone of influence for a Main Steam line break is therefore considerably smaller than a Recirculation line break (radius 17' vs. 25'). Since NUKON@ insulation is on all piping and not just specific locations gives credence to the assumption that not including a few Feedwater and Main Steam welds is acceptable (i.e. there are not in the current insulation configuration " pockets" of NUKON@ that could only be within one break location and not another break location). Not all weld locations are required to be evaluated. Only those breaks that are most limiting with respect to debris generation are required to be evaluated.

18

i l

i 1/11/99 1 72 0 CALCULATIONS l 7.1 Fibrous Insulation Debris Soarce Term to Suppression Pool l The computer software package, PIPES 2.0, was designed to perform the analysis ;

described in Section 1.1 (Steps 1-4) when the insulation types, quantities and locations are well characterized. This is the method that was applied to perform the Pilgrim debris generation analysis for the insulation inventoried in Section 4.1. The information necessary for the PIPES 2.0 input files was extracted directly from the AutoCAD@ model and documentation; these input files were reviewed for accuracy as part of the quality assurance review for this calculation.

Table 7.1 presents a summary of results for fibrous debris quantities from the Large ;

LOCA debris generati)n calculations for each weld location that was considered a j potential break location.

l Table 7.1 Fibrous Debris Generation Results for Insulation With Well-Characterized Location l Break Location Total - ft' Transport -Total- n' l 136 915 257 l 137 891 249 l 138 914 256 139 910 264 140 900 279 141 772 261 146 686 209 160 687 209 161 670 213 Nine of the Zones of Influence break locations indicate a NUKON@ debris source in the suppression pool of 209-279 ft3 The worst case location was break location 140. This break location is at elevation o - about 12' above the lowest grating. In addition to the above-calculated debris quantaies. AUKON@, debris may be transported to the pool from the insulated pipes with locations that are not well-characterized, i.e. pipes that were less than 12 inches in diameter and considered within the ZOI calculations. The break locations producing the maximum fibrous debris source term to the pool were identified from Table 7.1. The amount of small bore insulation that has not been included in the AutoCAD@ model is calculated as follows:

3 Total amount ofinsulation above the lowest elevation grating = 127.9 ft Applying transport fraction of 0.28 yields,127.9 x 0.28 = 35.8 ft 3 3

Total amount of insulation below the lowest elevation grating = 9.09 ft 19

1/11/99 Applying transport fraction of 0.78 yields,9.09 x 0.78 = 7.1 ft' Thus, a value of 42.9 ft' (35.8+7.1) was added to each weld break debris source term listed in Table 6.1. Therefore, for the worst break (#140 which occurs above the lowest elevation grating) 42.9 ft' is added to the debris term of 279.0 ft' to yield a total debris source term to the pool of 321.9 ft'.

7.2 RMI and Fibrous Insulation Debris Source Term to Suppression Pool from i Reactor Vessel i

7.2.1 VesselSurface Area The RM1 foil debris source term for breaks located outside the biological shield wall are zero.

For breaks inside the biological shield wall, the RMI foil debris source term is calculated by assuming the entire quantity of reactor vessel insulation is within the ZOI. The foil surface area can be estimated by approximating the vessel surface area using the ;

dimensions provided in Section 5.7 and multiplying by the assumed number of foils (10, See Section 5.5). The vessel dome will be treated as if it were part of the vessel shell (cylindrical) with a radius equal to that of the vessel. Therefore the total surface area ,

would be (including areas that are actually filled with NUKON@):

SA,,,,,, = 2nrh where:

r = radius of vessel (10.48')

h = height of cylindrical portion of vessel (66')

The estimated vessel surface area is therefore 4,346 ft2 . The volume of RMI is found as follows:

Volume ,,,ei w = nr ,usarsurpca{h o - nr ,,,,,,,surpce?h c

Where, r = radius of outer surface (10.48') [Ref. BECO, d]

r = radius of inner surface (10.19') (average 3.5" thickness of insulation)

Volume,,,,,mm = 1.253 ft' 7.2.2 Surface ArealVolume ofNUKON@ Insulation on Vessel However, there is a significant portion of the vessel covered with NUKON@ insulation (removable panels, Refs. BECO a through i). In order to calculate how much actual RM1 is present the surface area of NUKON@ must be calculated.

20

1/11/99 Using drawing information an estimate was made on the surface area of NUKON@

installed on the vessel. Results of the calculations determined the following:

Surface Area Total of NUKON@ = 1,115.55 ft2 Volume of Total NUKON@ on Vessel = 1,115.55 x 3/12 = 278.9ft 3 7.2.3 Surface Area ofRMIon Vessel The Surface Area Total of the RV insulation was calculated to be 4,346 ft 2, subtracting the surface area of NUKON@ from the total RV area yields the actual area of RMI on the vessel.

SAnni = 4,346 - 1,116 = 3,230 ft2 From this, assuming 10 foils covering the entire vessel, the single-sided RMI surface area 2

within the ZOI is 32,300 ft . Multiplying this by the composite destruction / transport factor for RMI (0.10), the foil debris source term to the suppression pool for breaks located inside the biological shield wall is 3,230 ft 2, Experience shows that a saturation bed of RMI foil debris will form on the strainer surface with much smaller debris quantities than that calculated above. RMI foils in excess of that saturation bed quantity will simply settle to the suppression pool bottom and will not contribute to head loss across the strainer debris bed. Therefore, as it is anticipated that the " saturation bed head loss" will be applied for the RMI portion of the strainer performance analysis, the number calculated above is simply provided to show the approximate amount of foil debris that may be present in the suppression pool.

7.2.4 NUKON@ R VNo:.zle insulation Volume The total volume of NUKON@ inside the bioshield is actually greater than that earlier reported, since there is NUKON@ insulation on the piping nozzles connected to the RV.

The RV nozzle insulation is varied in length and with respect to nozzle diameter. The 8

amount of NUKON@ on the nozzles is estimated as follows :

2 2 VOLwau = nh(ra - ra )

Where:

rs = outer radius of piping nozzle with insulation ra= outer radius of piping nozzle, inner radius of piping insulation h = length ofinsulation on nozzle, h assumed to be 2 ft.

' To simplify the calculation the circular ends of the pipe nozzles were not deducted. thus the number calculated is conservative (it calculates the entire volume).

21

! 1/11/99 l

Table 6.2 Nozzle Insulation Volumes !

3 I Nozzle Diameter, inches Quantity of Nozzles NUKON@ Volume, ft i 28 2 8.1 i i 20 4 12.0 .

12 14 27.5 10 2 3.4 :

l 2 1 .7 1 2 1.1 l Total NUKON@ 52.8 7.2.5 Total Volume ofNUKON@ Insulation Transported Break Inside Bioshield Wall L

It should be noted that the destruction /transpon factors used from the URG are those determined to be applicable to breaks outside the biological shield wall. There are no data available to quantify destruction / transport for breaks inside the shield wall.

However, given the tortuous pathway required to transport debris up out of the annular region outside the vessel, through the drywell, down the vents and into the suppression pool, it is expected that the values used are extremely conservative. This is especially true for a small or intermediate break LOCA. As was previously discussed, a destruction / transport factor of .25 will be used for fibrous debris for a break inside the 3

bioshield wall. From section 7.2.2,278.9 ft of NUKON@ was estimated to be present on 3

the RV in the form of NUKON panels. From section 7.2.4 a total of 52.8 ft of NUKON@ !

was calculated to be on the vessel nozzles. Therefore, it is calculated that a total volume !

3 of NUKON@ present inside the bioshield wall is the sum of the two values or 331.7 ft . l Applying a destruction / transport fraction of 0.10 yields the following volume of NUKON@ transported to the suppression pool; 33.2 ft3 . The bounding worst break ;

outside the bioshield wall be used for fibrous head loss calculations. For mixed insulation bed calculations the 33.2 ft3 calculated above in combination with 3,230 ft2 RMI insulation should be used. A drawing review showed there were no significant flow paths from inside reactor bioshield area to the drywell.

7.3 Sludge Quantity in Suppression Pool (Maximum Dry Weight)

Pilgrim is on a 24 month cycle. Given the sludge generation rate of 230.6 lbm (dry)/ cycle from recent measurements. This results in an annual sludge generation of 115.3 lbm (dry).

The sludge source term will include a de-sludge frequency of once every other cycle.

This will allow BECO the flexibility to decrease toms cleaning frequency if so desired.

This would result in 462 lbm of sludge at the end of two operating cycles. In addition, it is possible that not all of the sludge present in the torus will be removed during the cleaning process. It is also possible that the sludge generation rate may increase as the plant ages. To accommodate these unknown effects of these factors, the sludge source term for strainer head loss calculations will be increased approximately 10% to 500 lbm.

L 22

1/11/99 1 7.4 Other Debris Source Term to Suppression Pool 1

l In addition to the debris quantities calculated above, conservative debris quantities are estimated for four other debris types. Dirt and dust that may be transponed to the suppression pool is addressed in Section 7.4.1. Rust flakes that may be transported to the pool are addressed in Section 7.4.2. Paint chips or chips resulting from peeled surface l coatings are addressed in Section 7.4.3. In the NRC's Safety Evaluation Repon for the NEDO-326896 document (SER), it is stated that with respect to what the URG specified for guidelines on suppression pool debris that, "The staff finds no deficiencies in the recommendations documented in the URG. The staff reiterates the importance of the FME program to minimize the quantity of other potential debris". The NRC in their SER states more specifically that "The staff concludes that the BWROG interpretation of survey information is acceptable and the URG guidance in this section is acceptable".

l Thus, the NRC readily found acceptable the methods that were used in the URG, for proposal of suppression pool debris types and amount (non-fibrous). Therefore, acceptance of the values proposed in the URG were proven to have a basis by the NRC.

7.4.1 Dir0 Dust The URG recommended value for dirt and dust debris transported to the suppression pool of 150 lbm will be used directly.

7.4.2 Rust Flakes The URG recommended value rust flakes transported to the suppression pool of 50 lbm will be used directly. ,

7.4.3 Paint Chips The URG recommended value for paint chip debris (85 lbm, for coatings that are zine with epoxy top-coats) is based on paint that would be destroyed within the ZOI. The URG also suggests that utilities consider the possibility of peeling of coatings outside the ZO! in the long term if coatings are unqualified To allow for the possibility of future coating degradation, 85 lbm of paint chips are arbitrarily added to the suppression pool debris source term. This doubles the URG-recommended paint chip quantity from 85 lbm to 170 lbm.

To provide an estimate of what surface area this addition of paint chips represents,85 lbm is converted to a surface area. Assuming a typical epoxy density of 94 lb/ft' (based on URG, Section 3.2.2.2.2.1.1 data for epoxy coatings), a total volume of 0.9 ft3 is calculated. Assuming a typical coating thickness of 10 mil, this results in a surface area of approximately 1,086 ft'.

23

1/11/99 !

Since it is unknown how much actual unqualified paint coatings there are in the Pilgrim drywell, values that have been used for other BWR calculations were used here (i.e. J. A. j Fitzpatrick calculations).

8.0 RESULTS. CRITERIA AND CONCLUSIONS h

8.1 Results The following debris quantities in the suppression pool were used to perform ECCS ;

replacement strainer head loss performance calculations. !

ALL CALCULATIONS-PARTICULATE / MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS Suppression Pool Sludge: 250 lbm (torus cleaning every 2 years) or ,

500 lbm (torus cleaning every 4 years) !

Dirt / Dust: 150 lbm Rust Flakes: 50 lbm j Paint Chips (from ZOI): 85 lbm Paint Chips (long term degradation) 85 lbm

These debris quantities are applicable to al calculations. The insulation debris quantities '

to be used for the strainer performance calculations are as follows: l BREAK INSIDE SHIELD WALL Fibrous Debris, Worst Case: 33.2 ft' NUKON@

RMI Debris, Worst Case (RV Nozzle, single-sided foil surface area): 3,230 ft 2 ,

BREAK OUTSIDE SHIELD WALL I Fibrous Debris, Worst Case: 330.5 ft3 NUKON@ l No RMI Debris l

Note: To comply with the guidance presented in NRC Regulatory l Guide 1.82, the effects of a small/ medium break that generates that 2

" largest potential particulate debris to insulation ratio by weight" must be considered in the strainer head loss analysis. This sh.ill be accomplished by calculating the " worst case" head loss condition for fiber quantities that are less than the maximum calculated fiber ,

quantity and given the fixed amount of particulate debris (i.e., the i particulate debris quantities shown above).

8.2 Conclusions Two maximum debris generation cases were considered, one for a break outside of the bioshield wall, and one for inside the bioshield wall. The maximum debris generation ;

case for the break outside the bioshield wall is a conservative value since it includes all insulation on small piping within a zone of influence. In actuality only a portion of this insulation material would be within a break zone of influence. Also no credit was given 24

1/11/99 for any shielding from bioshield walls, components or structural members. Thus, the :

maximum debris generation volume is a conservative value. In reality the volume would be expected to be lower due to the high probability of not having a double ended guillotine break, and jet impingement deflection.

The maximum debris case for inside the bioshield wall is also a conservative value. It is not anticipated that a full double ended guillotine break would occur in a nozzle location.

Experience has shown in nozzles that a crack develops preferentially to a catastrophic failure. The type of break considered therefore, is the worst possible configuration. Also the path te get cutside of the bioshield wall is tortuous (debris has to go through vent pipii:g and pedestal area). Although the SER and URG do not address debris generation within the bioshield wall, this calculation has considered that potential.

i l

1

)

l l

\

l l

l 25

1/11/99 C. CALCULATION OF STRAINER HEAD LOSS The postulated post LOCA head loss across the Pilgrim Station ECCS suction strainers was calculated based on the debris loading from section B. Head loss estimates do not include the head loss associated with the clean strainer. Results of the head loss analysis t are summarized in this section. Details of the analysis are in reference Ic).

1.0 CAI,CUI,ATION METHODS l The general methods used for the estimation of the head loss across the strainers at the ;

suction of the ECCS of Pilgrim are based on the NUREG/CR-6224, Parametric Study of the Potentialfor BWR ECCS Strainer Blockage due to LOCA Generated Debris. The NUREG/CR-6224 fundamental models were implemented by the U.S. Nuclear r Regulatory Commission in the BLOCKAGE 2.5R computer code, which was used in this calculation to estimate head losses. Sections 1.1 and 1.2 summarize the methods used in this calculation J 1.1 BLOCKAGE 2.5R Computer Code The BLOCKAGE 2.5R code was developed by Science and Engineering Associates, Inc.

for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as a tool to evaluate licensee l compliance regarding the design of ECCS suction strainers as required by NRC Bulletin ;

96-03, Potential Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers by Debris in Boiling Water Reactors. As stated in its reference manual, the BLOCKAGE code was !

developed to predict whether or not accumulation of debris on the ECCS suction strainers l following a postulated LOCA would lead to loss of net positive suction head (NPSH) in a l Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). BLOCKAGE 2.5R allows the user to simulate debris generation and subsequent transport of different types of debris including fibers, particles l and metals, using user specified debris generation and transport factors. The transport of l debris from the drywell to the suppression pool can be simulated as location-dependent l and time-dependent. Alternatively, BLOCKAGE 2.5R allows the user to transport l instantaneously to the suppression pool a specified quantity of debris. In the pool, I BLOCKAGE 2.5R allows the possibility of modeling the transport of debris to the strainers by considering the specific sedimentation characteristics for each debris type and size group. Four user-optional head loss correlations, including the NUREG/CR-6224 head loss correlation for a mixture of fibrous and particulate matter debris, are available in BLOCKAGE 2.5R to estimate the pressure drop across the debris bed on the strainers.

To estimate the quantity of particulate matter debris retained in the fibrous debris bed, BLOCKAGE 2.5R allows the user to provide the filtration efficiency for each type of debris.

J l

l 26 )

1/11/99 1.2 IIcad Loss due to Fibrous Insulation Debris l l

The BLOCKAGE 2.5R computer code, issued on October 31, 1996, was utilized for I analysis supporting this calculation. BLOCKAGE 2.5R contains four optional correlations that may be selected by the user to model the head loss across a debris bed consisting of fibrous and particulate debris. The four correlations are the NUREG/CR-6224 correlation, the empirical correlation developed by the BWROG in 1994 [BWROG, 1994] (not to be confused with the URG head loss correlation for fibrous debris), and two generic correlations that can be used to implement an altemate user correlation.

The NUREG/CR-6224 head loss model, proposed for laminar, transient and turbulent flow regimes through mixed debris beds (i.e., debris beds composed of fibrous and particulate matter)is given by:

AU=A a" 2 3.5 S,2 a',,' (1 + 57 a,',,) gt,,.

U + 0.66 S,1 - a, p U (1) where, dH is the head loss, S, is the surface to volume ratio (or specific surface) of the debris particle.

l is the dynamic viscosity of water.

l U is the approach velocity, p is the density of water, a mis the mixed debris bed solidity, dLm is the mixed debris bed thickness, and l

A is a unit conversion factor (A = 1 for SI units). !

The mixed debris bed solidity is given by: ;

e ,

1 AL,.

I a,,, = 1+ P i 1 < Pr n> a,, AL, l (2) where, 1

l a, is the uncompressed fiber bed solidity.

ALo is the theoretical (uncompressed) fibrous debris bed thickness, n = m/mf si the particulate to fiber mass ratio in the debris bed, I

pf i., *he fiber material density, and pg is the particulate material density.

l 27 I . .

1/11/99 l For N, classes of particulate materials, m,, and p,, are defined by:

m, = L m, 4.i (3) 1 and l l

N,

[ p , V, l p , = " 's,

[ V, l (4) where mj , p, and V, are the mass, density and volume of a particulate material i.

Compression of the fibrous bed due to the pressure gradient across the bed is also I accounted for. The empirical relation that accounts for this effect, which must be l satisfied in parallel to the previous equation for the head loss, is given by (valid for l (NI/AL,) > 0.5 ft-water / inch-insulation):

c = 1.3 ac (MI/ALo)"'" for c S65/(1+n)lb/ft' (5)

where, 3

c is the compressed debris bed density (in Ib/ft ),

3 c,is the uncompressed fibrous debris density (in Ib/ft ),

MI / AL,is the head loss in ft-water per inch of insulation.

The compression is limited such that a maximum solidity, a,m, is not exceeded. In the NUREG/CR-6224 repon, this maximum solidity is considered to be:

3 a., = 65 lb/ft /pp This is equivalent to having a debris bed with a maximum density of 65 lb/ft'. Note that 3

65 lb/ft is the macroscopic density of a granular media such as sand, gravel or clay, and has been determined to be a reasonable value to use in case of iron oxide particles, such as those mainly composing the suppression pool sludge.

The NUREG/CR4224 head loss model was not developed by fitting parameters to experimental data for a specific strainer and, therefore, its application appears to be 28

1/11/99 flexible to most strainers and conditions, including the stacked-disk strainers for Pilgrim.

It should be noted, however, that the surface area of the strainer is the key input to the NUREG/CR-6224 model because it is used in the calculation of the debris bed thickness and the approach velocity. In the case of flat strainers, the surface area for head loss calculation does not change with the amount of fibrous debris, and the surface area to be used in these cases is simply the total surface area of the strainer. In the case of non-flat strainers, such as the stacked-disk strainers, the surface area for head loss calculations changes as the fibrous debris accumulates within the gaps between the stacked-disks.

Consequently, a correction to the surface area should be used to account for this effect, especially in those cases in which the amount of fibrous debris will completely fill-up the gaps in these strainers. Basically, the debris will fill-up the gaps between the stacked-disks when the debris bed thickness is about one-half of the strainer gap width.

Consequently, two BLOCKAGE 2.5R runs are used in this calculation: one using the full surface area of the strainer, and the second using the strainer circumscribed area, when the quantity of fibrous debris deposited on the strainers exceeds one-half of the gap width, i.e., when the debris bed thickness is greater than 1".

This modeling approach has been extensively validated for low density fiberglass (NUKON ) and mineral wool insulation debris in support of the OECD/CSNI Intemational Task Group, Knowledge Base for Emergency Core Cooling System Recirculation Reliability, NEA/CSNI/R (95)11, [NEA,1996). In all cases, the NUREG/CR-6224 model consistently predicted the experimental results within an acceptable error band.

In addition, a detailed analysis of the head loss testing done for the PCI stacked disk strainers at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) stramer test facility has been completed. These experiments were conducted for a wide range of fiber (NUKON )

quantities, sludge to fiber mass ratios, and effective surface area (gap filling). Excellent agreement was obtained for model predictions both in the case of small fiber quantities (gaps not filled) as well as for large fiber quantities (gaps filled with additional fiber buildup on the circumscribed area of the strainer). These results have been presented to the NRC in a public meeting on February 18, 1997. The Pilgrim strainers are a stacked disk design fabricated by PCI and similar in diameter to the prototype tested at EPRI.

29

1/11/99 l 2.0 DESIGNINPUTS i l This section describes the information used to develop the BLOCKAGE 2.5R specific l input data file for Pilgrim. Basically, this information consists of plant specific parameters, quantities and physical characteristics for each type of debris, as well as the modeling considerations with respect to debris sedimentation into the suppression pool .

floor and filtration of particulate matter within the debris bed.

i 2.1 Strainer Data Table 2-1 presents the dimensions of the two strainers installed at Pilgdm. The data is for a single strainer and is typical of two.

j Table 2-1. Pilgrim: Dimensions of the ECCS Strainers Strainer Module Characteristic Dimension Total Length 208 inches i Maximum Outer Diameter 44 inches Core Diameter 24 inches Average Full Disk Width 1.81 inches Half Disk Width 6 half disks,5 inches 3 half disks,6 inches Gap Width 2 inches ,

Gap Diameter' 24 inches Number of Full Disks 35 Total Surface Area 670 ft* 1 Circumscribed Surface Area 177 ft*

i l

2.2 Flow Conditions The head losses were calculated considering two operational Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pumps, each with a flow rate of 5600 gpm, and one Core Spray (CS) pump, with a flow rate of 4400 gpm, for a total ECCS flow rate of 15600 gpm. At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months into the postulated accident, one RHR pump is shut off. The temperature of the water in the suppression pool is given in Table 23 of Calculation M-662 (Ref. 4c)). Based on this Table, the suppression pool water temperature values used in these calculations are summarized in' Table 2-2. The suppression pool water volume considered in this calculation is 84000 ft' (Ref. 4c)).

' Equal to the core diameter.

30 i

1/11/99 Table 2-2. Pilgrim: Suppression Pool Water Temperature Time ' Temperature (s)-- ( F) 0 134 F 557 139.5.

2844 163.7 5969. 174.4 :

19325 182.3 {

22924 182.2 61998 170.3 f 105128 156.3 l 151545 146.2 i 190800 140.4 !

'226800 136 l 262800 131.9 !

298800 129.7 334800 127.6 370800 125.7 406800 124 691200 116.2' 864000- 112.3 i t

2.3 Debris Quantities ;

The debris types and quantities to be used in the ECCS performance assessment are as described in Section B. These debris types and quantities are summarized in Table 2-3 for a postulated break outside the reactor shield wall. Note that such a break does not

. generate Reflective Metallic Insulation (RMI) debris. ,

Table 2-3. Pilgrim: Debris Types and Quantities Transported to the Suppression Pool in :

Case of a Break Outside the Reactor Shield Wall.

Debris Type Quantity NUKONm insulation debris 330.5 ft' Suppression pool sludge 500 lb L:' Dirt / Dust 150 lb Rust Flakes - 50 lb Paint Chips (from zone ofinfluence) 85 lb Paint Chips (long-tenn degradation) 85 lb 3

L For a postulated break inside the reactor shield wall, estimates are that 33.2 ft of l NUKON insulation debris and 3230 ft2 of I mil Aluminum RMI debris are transported i

31

1/11/99 to the suppression pool. The same quantities for particulate matter debris indicated in Table 2-3 for a break outside the reactor shield wall are considered in case of the postulated break inside the reactor shield wall.

2.4 Debris Characteristics The NUREG/CR-6224 head loss correlation considers each type of debris by specifying the fiber diameter, the as-fabricated and the material fibrous matter densities, and the characteristic sizes (in terms of the specific surface area) and densities of suppression pool sludge and drywell particulate matter. The following paragraphs present the proposed debris characteristics to be used in this calculation.

The material density of NUKON fiberglass insulation is 175 lb/ft' (2800 kg/m 3) and the as-fabricated pack density of this material is 2.4 lb/ft' (38 kg/m'). The SEM analysis of NUKONS fiberglass debris shows that the diameter of the fibers is fairly uniform and 4

approximately equal to 7.1 pm, which results in a specific surface of 1.7x10 ft".

3 The density of sludge, which is basically iron oxide, i: 324 lb/ft' (5190 kg/m ). The mass median diameter of the sludge particle size distribution is estimated to be 2.5 pm.

In the absence of more detailed information, a microscopic density of dirt / dust of 156 3 3 lb/ft (2500 kg/m ) will be used. An average equivalent diameter of 10 pm, based on a typical dbmeter of dust panicles were used in this calculation to estimate the fraction of dirt /dv peicles deposited within the fiber bed.

In general, the following types of coatings are found inside the primary containment of BWR nuclear plants: inorganic Zinc, epoxy, and alkyd. The 3 microscopic densities of these materials are: 90 lb/ft- (1430 kg/m ) for epoxy,94 lb/ft (1500 kg/m ) for alkyd, and 3

156 lb/ft' (2500 kg/m ) for inorganic Zinc. In the absence of specific details about the paint / coatings chips in Pilgrim, a microscopic density of 124 lb/ft' will be used in these calculations. The predominant coating system in the Pilgrim containment is inorganic l

zine primer with some areas having an epoxy topcoat. Coatings on vendor supplied components in the drywell are not well documented and are probably typical commercial alkyds.

3 Rust flakes will be considered as iron oxides, with a microscopic density of 324 lb/ft (5190 kg/m3). To estimate the settling rates of this type of debris, the shape and characteristic size of rust flakes will be assumed to be similar to those for paint chips.

2.5 Considerations in Estimating Head Losses 2.5.1 Debris Sedimentation In these calculations it was assumed that sedimentation of debris in the suppression pool can not occur during the high-energy phase of a LOCA, which lasts for about 120 s. In 32

i l

1/11/99 the NUREG/CR-6224 study,it was judged that after cessation of the high energy phase in the pool during a LOCA, the settling rates will not be lower than 50% of those corresponding to the settling velocities for quiescent pools. For, additional conservatism, a sedimentation velocity 5 times lower than the terminal settling velocity for each type of debris, was considered in this calculation.

For fibrous debris and suppression pool sludge, the same experimentally determined terminal settling velocity groups presented in the NUREG/CR-6224 study were used. For dirt / dust particles, a single terminal settling velocity group, characterized by the median settling velocity determined for sludge (i.e., a terminal settling velocity of 0.01 ft/s (3 mm/s)) was used.

Paint chips are estimated to have an average settling velocity of 0.3 ft/s (90 mm/s). Thus, a single terminal settling velocity group, characterized by this average velocity, was used in this calculation. No experimental data are available to estimate the sedimentation rate of rust flakes. However, with a characteristic size comparable to paint chips and a density factor between 2 and 3 higher, a greater sedimentation rate is expected for rust. For conservatism, the same average terminal settling velocity proposed for paint chips,0.3 ft/s (90 mm/s), was used to characterize a single teminal settling velocity group for rust flakes.

The average settling velocity used in this calculation for debris fragments from 1 mil aluminum RMI is 0.26 ft/s.

2.5.2 Debris Filtration Not all of the particulate debris reaching the strainer would be trapped or filtered by the strainer to form a debris bed on the strainer surface. The fraction of the debris particles

> approaching the strainer that is deposited and contained in the fibrous debris bed is referred to as the filtration efficiency. Qualitatively, this fraction depends on the type and characteristic size of the debris, the debris bed thickness, and the approach velocity to the strainer. Although the present understanding of the filtration process is based on inferences from limited experiments, it appears possible to get filtration efficiencies close to 1.0 for nearly all types of fibrous debris and some particulate matter, such as paint chips and rust flakes. However, about 95% (by mass) of the sludge particles in the suppression pool are less than 10 pm in characteristic diameter and lower filtration efficiencies, on the order of 0.25 to 0.50, have been reported for particles of this characteristic size in NUKON fiber debris beds of about 2 inches in theoretical thickness. For fibrous debris beds thicker than 2 inches, it is possible that the filtration efficiency would be higher than 0.50. Ilence, a 0.75 filtration efficiency for sludge particles was used for debris beds thicker than 2 inches. The characteristic size of dirt / dust particles can be assumed to be about 10 pm. The dominant filtration mechanisms for panicles of this characteristic size, i.e., dust and sludge panicles, are impaction and interception. For these mechanisms, the filtration efficiency is essentially the same for particles with diameters between 2 and 10 pm.

33

1/11/99 Based on these considerations, this calculation used the same efficiency model for sludge and din / dust particles, i.e., an efficiency 0.75 for theoretical debris bed thickness greater than 4 inches, and a linear variation for the filtration efficiency from 0 to 0.75 for theoretical thickness lower than 4 inches. For relatively large panicles, i.e., paint chips and rust flakes, this calculation considers a filtration efficiency of 1.0.

3.0. ASSUMPTIONS

In these calculations, it was assumed that all the drywell debris are uniformly transported to the suppression pool during the blowdown period which, following the NUREG/CR-6224 study, is considerej to last for 120 s in case of a large LOCA break.

The quantity of debris, both fibrous and panicles, are assumed to be transponed to the strainers in proportion to the corresponding flow rate.

The debris bed is formed and distributed uniformly over the surface of the strainer, e The debris bed is homogeneous in composition, i.e., the particulate-to-fiber mass ratio remains constant along the debris bed.

A debris sedimentation velocity 5 times lower than the terminal settling velocity was assumed for post-LOCA debris after 120 s due to cessation of the LOCA high-energy phase in the suppression pool.

The density and characteristic dimension of each drywell particulate rr.aterial was assumed based on generic data.

The same settling rate cor.sidered for paint chips was assumed for rust flakes.

A linear filtration efficiency model was assumed to be valid for sludge and dirt / dust particles for debris bed thickness up to 4 inches. For thicker beds, a peak filtration efficiency of 0.75 will be considered for sludge and dirt / dust particles. This is based on the fact that about 25 %, by mass, of the sludge particles are expected to be less than 3 pm in equivalent diameter and, therefore, would likely pass through the debris bed. For paint chips and rust flakes, a filtration efficiency of 1.0 will be assumed for all debris bed thickness.

To calculate head losses, and following the NUREG/CR-6224 study, the same specific surface area of NUKON fibers, i.e.,1.71 x10 4 ft", was used for each debris type. This assumption was made to avoid a potential non-conservative average for the specific surface of a mixture of fibrous and particulate matter debris [ Mast,1997].

This calculation I assumed that the debris bed characteristics remain essentially constant for 8.64x10's (10 days) into the postulated accident. Note that there are uncertainties with respect to this assumption, because some characteristics of the debris bed formed on the strainer may change as a result of long-term (i.e., over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months ) exposure to the pressure drop and flow conditions calculated in this l analysis.

4.0. CAI.CITI.ATION RF.st'I.Ts The head loss perfonnance analysis is based on the flow conditions and debris quantities specif;ed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, respectively, and the considerations for debris filtration 34

l/11/99 i and sedimentation presented in Section 2.5. Note that it is assumed that the all the drywell debris are uniformly transported to the suppression pool during the blowdown l phase, considered to last 120 s for a large LOCA. The sludge was assumed to be initially l in the pool.

l 1

4.1 Hreak Outside the Reactor Wall Based on the discussion presented in Section 2, the NUREG/CR-6224 head loss correlation, used in the BLOCKAGE 2.5R analysis for Pilgrim, produces conservative '

results for stacked disk strainers if the strainer circumscribed surface area (instead of the full surface area)is used when the quantity of fibrous debris deposited on the strainers has a bed thickness equivalent to one-half of the gap width. Therefore, two runs were made j with BLOCKAGE 2.5, one using the full surface area of the strainer, denoted Case 01 and 1 the second using the strainer circumscribed area, when the quantity of fibrous debris !

deposited on the strainers exceeds a debris bed thickness of 1 inch, denoted Case 02. The i I

following sections describe each of these cases.

4.1.1 Calculationsfor the Full Strainer Surface Area The main purpose of Case 01 is to determine the time at which the effective ama of the strainer changes from the full surface area, 670 ft 2, to the circumscribed surface area, 2

calculated to be 177 ft . This transition is estimated to occur when the debris bed l thickness is approximately equal to 1 inch. Case 01 considers the total quantity of each type of debris presented in Table 2-3, assuming that the 330.5 ft' of fibrous insulation debris are unifonnly transported to the pool in 120 s. In addition, Case 01 considers that the maximum ECCS flow rate of 15600 gpm is reached at about 120 s into the postulated accident. A summary of the BLOCKAGE 2.5 calculations for Case 01 is given in l Table 4-1. The detailed BLOCKAGE 2.5R output for Case 01 is included as l Attachment B.

Table 4-1 Pilgrim: Summary of BLOCKAGE 2.5R Calculations for Case 01 (t = 540 s)

Pool Temperature 139 F Fibers in the Pool 257.877 ft' Debris Bed Thickness 1.02 inches 3

i Sludge in the Pool 1.139 ft

! Dirt / Dust in the Pool 0.814 ft 3 3

Rust Flakes in the Pool 0.021 ft 3

Paint Chips in the Pool 0.186 ft As indicated in Table 4, it takes about 540 s to fonn a debris bed of about 1 inch on the strainers, which is equivalent u the quantity of fibrous required to fill up the gaps between the stacked disks of the strainers. In addition, at time equals 540 s BLOCKAGE 2.5R calculates that the head loss is approximately 0.14 ft-water.

35

i !

1 1/11/99 i- i 4.1.2 Base Case Calculationsfor the Circumscribed Strainer Surface Area Base Case 01 provides the time at which the transition from the full stacked disk strainer l area to the circumscribed surface area occurs for the Pilgrim strainers. This time is calculated to be about 540 s. In addition, the BLOCKAGE 2.5R calculations for Case 01 ;

provide the quantity of each type of debris suspended in the pool at time 540 s which, in i turn, is used as input for Case 02. The balance of the debris quantities is already j deposited 'on the strainers, retained in the primary system, or deposited onto the :

suppression pool floor. Note that time 0.0 s in Case 02 in reality corresponds to the time at which the transition for the full strainer area to the circumscribed strainer area, i.e.,

540 s.

l 4.1.3 Rase Case Calculation Results Coupled together, Cases 01 and 02 constitute the Base Case for the Pilgrim ECCS l strainer performance analysis. The head loss, as a function of time due to fibrous and particulate matter debris per strainer at Pilgrim for the Base Case, is presented in Figure l 4-1. The maximum theoretical debris thickness in this case is calculated to be about 15 inches.

12 10 -

8-T E

j

L 1

1 4' l

l 2

0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Time (s)

Figure 4-1 Pilgrim: Head loss as a function of time for 330.5 ft' of fibrous debris generated outside the reactor shield wall.

36

1/11/99 As shown in Figure 1, the head loss increases to approximately 10.6 ft-water at about ,

7200 s (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ), when the reduction in the ECCS flow rate occurs. Immediately after the ECCS flow reduction, the head loss decreases abruptly to 5.5 ft-water, suggesting that in the first stage of the accident, i.e.,7200 s, the head loss is dominated by the relatively high flow rates across the strainers. After 7200 s, the head loss increases smoothly up to approximately 5.7 ft-water at about 25000 s, where it remains essentially constant during 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months , indicating complete deposition of debris on the strainer.

4.1.4 Effect of the Interference Between the Debris Red and PoolStructures There are some stmetures in the proximity of the strainers that may represent obstructions for the debris build-up and flow through the strainers. These suppression pool structures include ring girders, quenchers, and wetwell floor. The maximum theoretical debris bed thickness for the postulated break outside the reactor wall shield was estimated to be about 15 inches without any interference. This debris bed thickness corresponds to 3

222.9 ft of as-fabricated fibrous insulation debris deposited on the strainer. The wetwell floor, in particular, may represent the most limiting interference for debris bed build-up, because it affects the whole length of the strainer assembly with a minimum clearance of 5 inches. The interference between the strainer and the wetwell floor is illus: rated in Figures 4-2 and 4-3.

. e4:4:I[ 44,5 4th:tttgpl:ct:it@, A

.ftN3nfttttddirttiinttit%i:n Apitit+gjtMtitjjyh:!?;$$$3jtttyj[3[tT(

4thtjistiing l tttitettW. ;th. ,

,,Mtit a 4titttiyttttt$ituttt at4MutitutN: ;;!$'::tt;ntntifunfMf{ta tttttipju,...,,. t 1

4 Lyndtut;nttttitut*"+mnij:g?;#th ittiTitDi!utt?" i tuth

+ tttt0;tuW hit; I

i I1 M n it1 M u ttit" l NtutuuD 1 )

section I CinttittnMtt 4 Mit;;uttt;. -f g;ngi : 3 :p ;;g.;g;_;r, n ee u we.d;m;7 l ume , - Section 1 y pinnts::ct ; stra.iner e, "Hu -,+,t;u tuit ,

nututhtim 0

utn;n;nd I

I m :--- m r--- - -----

re....m . m .- .. j

te;& n nt:;n n m, m em m 2 :

.ta,n, ,guinu,: ,

n .mt m :,

m -. :x;~ny I

m$nunne .

section D MinW ittMy T. .g;%:iG g MN!M jUi:Nh ' NnI:I Section 2

tuM ;MnY w 1r ,. , ^% t?

1t UN' $IlfII kiiNiiihe. , ,;,a d j.Ct$ e, IjJ

%;;;LMjf ;ItttiMMt.;M LitutjNQ ', l 4+ ' '

NI F d.,ilB,n_]T.,},- R hW, .. .:i.d-+ O

. 1 WMMMff/M7//////MM7/M7BfMMM/FM7/M/MMZM; neighboring wall l i

l \

l l

l Figure 4-2. Pilgrim: Schematics of the interference between the strainer and the wetwell floor i (transversal view, not scaled).Section I denotes the region not affected by the interference, whereas l Section 2 denotes the region affected by the interference.

l 37 i

1/11/99

,= y...... . . . ,

!*si.-+! 'l

f. . -.... ,

j ~Li-+ +-La.-+ +- L3 _, **i-+

Sectbn t y 1 1

}..y ... o , .. .. .. . ... . . . . . . . . 4 sectbb b Lb -

{d ;

Figure 4-3. Pilgrim: Schematics between the strainer and the wetwell floor (longitudinal view, not scaled).

The approach used in this calculation to account for the impact of the interference between the suppression structures and the debris bed on the head loss, calculated is summarized as follows:

1. Estimation of the debris bed thickness in the region not affected by the interference, ti , based on the angle 0, distance x, and lengths Lt and Lb. Length Lh, which corresponds to the strainer length affected by the structures, is the active length of the strainer (208" per Table 1). Length Lt, which corresponds to the strainer length not affected by the structures, is Lb minus the sum of the weldolet lengths Li, L2 and L3. Li, L and 2 L3 are equal to 23.51",28" and 27.28",

respectively (Dwg CIA 300). The thickness ti is estimated to be 1.22 ft (14.6 inches).

2. Estimation of a characteristic debris bed thickness in the region affected by the interference,1. 2 Note that the debris bed thickness in the region affected by the interference (Section 2 in Figure 2) is not uniform and, consequently, a characteristic thickness 12 has to be selected to represent the debris bed in this region. A conservative selection for this characteristic thickness is to simply consider this thickness to be equal to distance x, which represents a relatively long distance for the flow through the debris bed in this region (see Figure 2). As indicated in Attachment F, this characteristic thickness is estimated to be 2.06 ft (30.2 inches).

3. Estimation of an average debris bed thickness, T. based oni t and21. As indicated in Attachment F, this thickness is estimated to be 1.44 ft (17.3 inches).

l

4. A method was developed by ITS Corporation to estimate the impact of a non-uniform debris bed. In summary, this method estimates the ratio of the head loss I

due to a non-uniform debris bed (characterized by thickness ti and 12 ), to the corresponding head loss due to a uniform debris bed (characterized by thickness T).

5. The ratio of the non-uniform debris bed head loss to the uniform debris bed head loss is then used to estimate the head loss factor due to the interference based on 38

l .

l 1/11/99 l 1

the theoretical debris bed thickness calculated by BLOCKAGE 2.5R without the interference (i.e.,15 inches). Note that the thickness ti (and consequently the ,

thickness t2 and t) is calculated based on the debris deposited on the cylindrical geometry illustrated in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. BLOCKAGE 2.5R calculates the theoretical debris bed thickness considering that the debris is deposited on a flat surface (which explains why ti is less than the 15 inches calculated by BLOCKAGE 2.5R).

6. To account for the interference between the debris bed and the ring girder and quencher structures, that affect debris deposition on the strainer end plates, it is conservatively assumed that no debris can deposit on the end plates.

7. The head loss factor due to the interference is estimated to be 1.084.

8. The effect of the suppression pool structures interfering with the debris bed build-up on the strainer, the results presented in Section 6.1.3 are increased by the head ;

loss factor due to the ir.!erference, i.e., by 1.084. i l

l 4.2 Break Inside the Reactor Wall Shield :

As indicated in Section 2.3, the postulated break inside the reactor shield wall generates and transports 33.2 ft' of NUKON insulation debris in combination with 3230 ft2 og 1 mil aluminum RMI debris to the suppression pool. The BLOCKAGE 2.5R computer I code was used to estimate the fraction of RMI transported to the strainer considering the same conditions for debris sedimentation as in Section 2.5. In this case, a single terminal settling velocity group, characterized by tlie average velocity of 0.26 ft/s of 1 mil aluminum RMI debris was used. Based on this calculation with BLOCKAGE 2.5R, I 2

about 12% of the RMI debris transported to the pool reach the strainer, i.e., about 388 ft 3

of RMI debris is deposited on the strainers. In this case, about 29 ft (i.e., about 70 lb) of fibrous debris is also transported to the strainers.

In case of stacked-disk strainers, test observations show that debris initially deposit within the gaps between the stacked-disks. Furthermore, typically the head loss is negligible before the gap volume is filled with debris. Hence,it is desirable to compare the volume of debris reaching the strainer with the gap volume available in the strainer ensembles installed at Pilgrim.

The volume available within the gaps in the stacked-disks for each of the 4 modules ;

composing the strainer ensemble installed at Pilgrim, V,, can be approximated by:

l ir V' = -(D*2 _ p,2) d* (N - 1) 1 /t' 4 1728 in' (6) j where, 39

1/11/99 D, = 44" is the stacked-disk outer diameter D, = 24" is the gap diameter, d, = 2" is the gap width and N is the number of disks in each of the 4 modules of the strainer.

The numtser of disks per strainer module is 3,15,12, and 5. Hence, the total gap volume of the strainer ensemble, excluding the volume associated with the weldolet penetrations, is approximately 38 ft'.

2 The volume of debris associated with 388 ft of 1 mil aluminum RMI debris, Vam,is given by:

V,u, = K, A,u, (7) where 2

Aam = 388 ft is the RMI foil debris area deposited on the strainers and K, = 0.009 ft is the thickness constant for 1.5 mil aluminum.

The volume of RMI debris is then estimated to be approximately 3.5 ft3 , which is about 10 times smaller than the available gap volume. Without considering compression effects, the total volume of insulation debris may be approximated by the sum of the volume of fibrous and RMI insulation debris deposited on the strainers, i.e., about 33 ft),

still smaller than the available gap volume.

Based on this semi-quantitative assessment, it seems very likely that the distribution of debris on the strainer surface will be non-uniform, allowing for the possibility of having relatively " clean" regions on the strainer, and thus resulting in a negligible head loss.

l This expectation may be further supported by applying the results from tests to estimate the head loss due to 1.5 mil aluminum RMI debris in a stacked disk strainer. These tests were performed at the Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) strainer test facility, and were conducted with an actual stacked-disk ECCS strainer. The following empirical l correlation, based on the test data, can be used to estimate head loss in case of a relatively slow addition of RMI debris to the suppression pool:

1 A H,,, = 2.78 A " ""' U l A,,,,

(8) where AHam is the head loss due to RMI debris,in inches of water, 40

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

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

1/11/99 l l

J

' Ara-nui is the reduced RMifoil area, defined as:

r , . j A g ,,, = A ,,, - y E- l K, s

-(9) l 2

J Anec = 177 ft .is is the strainer circumscribed area, V, = 38 ft' is the strainer gap volume, .

i U is the strainer approach velocity, in ft/s, given by:

1 U= 0 450 x A,, !

(10)- l where Q is the flow rate, in gpm,450 gpm/(ft'/s) is a unit conversion factor, and K, is a l thickness coefficient estimated to be: j i

K, = 0.009 ft (l1) .

2 Applying the correlation in Equation (8) confirms that the head loss due to 388 ft of RMI i debris is negligible.- l The head loss due to fibrous insulation debris in case of the postulated break inside the !

reactor shield wall is presented in Figure 4-2. The peak head loss due to 33.2 ft' of - 1 fibrous insulation debris transponed to the suppression pool in case of the postulate break j inside the reactor shield wall is less than 0.1 ft-water

]

41

. , . _ , , , , , ,.,n -r - . - - - --~ ~

f

l l

1/11/99 i

i o.10 1 0.00 '

l i

o.os ;

0 07 -

o 06 '

~

_ . o.os - f 0.04 -

)

0.o3 -

l o.o2 I i

0.01 l

l o.00 ;

o 00 5000 oo 1oooom 15000.00 20000 m 25000.00 soooom 35000.00 40000.00 !

Time (s)

Figure 4-2 Pilgrim: Head loss vs time for 33.2 ft' of fibrous debris generated inside the reactor shield wall.

4.3 COMPARISON WITH NPSH MARGIN From the results presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 for postulated breaks outside and

, inside the reactor shield wall, respectively, the most limiting case to assess ECCS strainer performance is given by the postulated break outside the reactor shield wall. Based on BEco calculation M-662 the pump with the lowest NPSH margin is the core spray pump.

l The results for the NPSH margin of the core spray pump, considering a containment l leakage rate of 5% per day from Table 23 in this calculation, together with the head loss j, due post-LOCA debris in case of the postulated break outside the shield wall are j presented in Figure 4-4, l

l

('

a 4

3 42

1/11/99 16 i 14 XX X-x x X X x

12 '

X' - - - - - -- -- -'

f 10 ' - - - - - -- - -- -

8-

] 6- -- - - - - -- = -

4-2 0

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Time (s) l-Head Loss X MarDin l Figure 4-4.' Pilgrim: Comparison between the core spray pump NPSH margin [ Calc M-662. Table 231 and the head loss due to 330.5 ft' of fibrous insulation debris transported to the pool in case of a break outside the reactor shield wall.

The comparison in Figure 4-4 indicates that, for the most limiting case given by the postulated break outside the reactor shield wall, the minimum difference between the NPSH margin for the core spray pump and the debris head loss is about 1.3 ft-water.

Note that the head loss results presented in Figure 4-4 include the factor of 1.084 due to the interference between the suppression pool structures and the debris build-up on the strainer, but do not include the head loss associated with clean strainer.

5.0 Parametric Analyses The base case analysis suggests that a key variable is the time at which the ECCS flow is reduced, i.e.,7200 s. In addition, it is of interest to assess the impact on the calculated head losses of the postulated quantity of particulate matter debris, particularly paint chips.

These cases are analyzed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.

43

1/11/99 5.1 Effect of the Time of ECCS Flow Reduction The base case calculation considers that the ECCS flow is reduced from 15600 gpm to 10000 gpm at 7200 s (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ) into the accident. To investigate the effect of the time at which this action occurs, a case was mn with BLOCKAGE 2.5R considering that this ECCS flow reduction occurs at 1800 s into the accident. The specific output file is included in Attachment D. Figure 5-1 presents the head loss per strainer as a function of time considering that the ECCS flow reduction takes place 1800 s into the accident.

l l

12 l

x 10 - i l

8 i

5 E

3 6-3 1

2 '

4-2 0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Time (s) l-Parametnc 1

Base case l Figure 51 Pilgrim: Effect of a reducaon in the ECCS Dow rate at 1800 s.

As indicated in Figure 5-1, a peak head loss of approximately 5 ft-water occurs at about 1800 s, the time at which the ECCS flow changes from 15600 to 10000 gpm in this parametric calculation. Immediately after the ECCS flow reduction, the head loss decreases abruptly to 2.9 ft-water. After 1800 s, the head loss increases smoothly up to approximately 5.5 ft-water at about 20000 s, where it remains essentially constant, indicating comp'ete deposition of debris on the strainer. The maximum head loss in this case decreases by a factor of approximately 2 with respect to the base case calculation, suggesting the importance of the time at which the ECCS flow reduction occurs.

44

i 1/11/99 5.2 Effect of the Quantity of Paint Chips l The base case considers 170lb of paint chips debris. To investigate the impact of the !

quantity of paint chips on the estimated head loss, a case was run with BLOCKAGE 2.5R l considering 340 lb of paint chips. Other than the quantity of paint chips, the same input !

parameter as in the base case were used in this parametric case.

The BLOCKAGE 2.5R computer code calculation for this case shows essentially the !

same trend as in the base case. The peak head loss, at 7200 s, is estimated to be 10.7 ft-water, in comparison with the 10.6 ft-water estimated in the base case, suggesting that doubling the quantity of paint chips debris does not result in a significant (or even appreciable) difference with respect to the base case results.

i l

6.0.

SUMMARY

AND CONCI,IISIONS i In this calculation, the following cases were analyzed with BLOCKAGE 2.5R:

l e Break Outside the Reactor Shield Wall. Considers the following types and quantities i i

of debris: 330.5 ft of fibrous debris,500 lb of sludge,150 lb of dirt / dust,50 lb of rust l flakes and 170 lb of paint debris. This case considers that the drywell debris, i.e.,

fibrous insulation, dirt / dust, rust flakes and paint chips, are uniformly transponed to the pool in 120 s, which is the time for the blowdown period used in the NUREG/CR-6224. The time at which the transition from the full strainer surface area to the circumscribed surface area occurs for the Pilgrim strainers is estimated to be 540 s.

The maximum ECCS flow rate of 15600 gpm is assumed to be established at 120 s and decreases to 10000 gpm at 7200 s (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ) into the accident.

e Break Inside the Reactor Shield Wall. Considers the same quantities of particulate matter debris as in the case of the postulated break outside the reactor shield wall, but 3 2 33.2 ft of fibrous insulation debris and 3230 ft of 1 mil aluminum RMI debris. The same flow conditions as in the case of the break outside the shield wall apply in this case, j e Parametric Case 1. Considers that the ECCS flow reduction from 15600 to l 10000 gpm occurs at 1800 s. The same debris quantities and flow conditions as in the case of the postulated break outside the reactor shield wall are used in this parametric case.

Parametric Case 2. Considers the effect on the head loss of doubling the quantity of paint chips debris. The same quantities of other debris and the flow rate scenario of the break outside the reactor shield wall are used in this parametric case.

The most relevant conclusions are summarized as follows:

1. For the postulated break outside the reactor shield wall, the head loss across the debris bed formed on the strainers reaches a peak head loss of 11.5 ft-water at 7200 s, and i 45 l

1/11/99 then decreases abruptly to 6.0 ft-water due to the flow reduction from 15600 gpm to 10000 gpm considered. This suggests that the head loss during the first 7200 s is dominated by the ECCS flow rate.

2. After 7200 s, the head loss increases relatively slowly up to approximately 6.2 ft-water, at about 25000 s, when most of the debris is either deposited on the strainers or settled into the suppression pool floor.

3. A graphical comparison with the NPSH margin for the core spray pump as a function of time indicates that the difference between the NPSH margin of the core spray pump and the debris head loss across the strainers is about 3 ft at a time of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months before one pump is tripped and is a minimum of approximately 1.3 ft-water at a time of about 260000 sec. (~ 72 hrs.) post LOCA.

4. For the postulated break inside the reactor shield wall, about 12% of the RMI debris in transported to the pool reach the strainers, i.e., about 388 2ft of RMI debris are deposited on the strainers. In addition, about 29 ft' (70lb) of fibrous debris are deposited on the strainers in this case. For these debris quantities, a non-uniform debris bed is anticipated on the strainer surface. The head loss is estimated to be less than 0.1 ft-water in case of the postulated break inside the reactor shield wall.

5. This analysis suggests that the head loss calculations for Pilgrim are sensitive to the time considered for the ECCS flow rate reduction. Considering that the ECCS flow reduction from 15600 to 10000 gpm occurs at 1800 s, results in a peak head loss of 5.5 ft-water, in comparison with the corresponding peak head loss of 10.6 ft-water (not adjusted for interference of torus structures) calculated in the case of the postulated break outside the reactor shield wall. This represents a decrease by a factor of approximately 2 with respect to the base case, suggesting the importance of the time at which the ECCS flow reduction is postulated.

6. Increasing the quantity of paint chips debris by a factor of 2 does not result in an appreciable difference with respect to the head losses calculated for the base case.

46

1/11/99 D. STRAINER DESIGN /STRIK'TURAL EVALUATION l

1.0 Summarv I 2

The new strainers have a surface area of 670 ft per strainer. There are two strainers and each strainer provides suction to 2 RHR and 1 Core Spray pumps. Prior to replacement, j the old strainers had a surface area of approximately 13 ft' per pump. Thus the surface area per pump was increased from 13 to about 223 ft per pump. To minimize hydrodynamic loading, the strainers were located near the bottom of the torus. This maximized the distance from the downcomers and positioned the strainers below the elevation of the SRV T-Quenchers to prote-et the strainer from SRV blowdown loads and prevent entrainment of steam bubbles into the pump suction. Attachment 1 is a 3D rendition showing one of two strainer assemblies at the bottom of a torus bay. shows the location of the new strainers in a plan view of the torus. 1 The strainers are a stacked disk design with a 24" diameter schedule 80 stainless steel pipe core tube and reinforced stainless steel perforated plate disk assemblies welded to l the core tube to assure a robust design. Perforated plate hole sizing criteria for the new strainers is the same as that for the existing strainer. The holes are 1/8" diameter to prevent LOCA generated debris from blocking the containment spray nozzles. Strainer flow approach velocities are low and the flow is evenly distributed to minimize head loss and prevent any vortex formation. Maximum differential design pressure is 12 psi which is less the maximum calculated head loss of approximately 5 psi. This assures that there i is no deformation under the maximum debris loading. The strainers were attached to the Torus ring girders and not to the Torus shell. Piping connections from the strainers to the Torus nozzles have slip joints to prevent transmission of LOCA loads to the Torus shell.

The material selected for the strainers is corrosion resistant stainless steel, The ring girder supports are coated carbon steel.

The structural analysis of the strainers and interfacing Containment Structures was performed in accordance with the Mark 1 Containment program as described in NUREG-0661. Chugging and Condensation Oscillation were the controlling loads for strainer design. Mitigation techniques to reduce hydrodynamic loads were not used. Strainer design, fabrication and examination was in accordance with ASME Section Ill Subsection NF 1977, Summer 1978 Addenda per the requirements of the Mark I Containment Program. Modifications addressed the requirements of ASME Section XI,1989 Edition.

Installation was done under PDC 96-32, Ref. 4b). Details of the requirements for strainer design, analysis, fabrication, testing, and documentation were provided in BECo Specification M-618, Ref. 4a).

Stmetural calculations of the strainer, strainer support structures, strainer piping and the effects on Containment were performed by Altran Corporation under a 10 CFR 50 Appendix B QA Program. Results of the calculations show that stress levels for the strainer assembly and the affected Containment structures are within the Code allowable 47

1/11/99 limits. The following sections are a summary of the Altran Calculation results with references to the applicable calculations. ;

i 2.0 Calculation Methodolony The methods used in this calculation were consistent with the MK 1 Containment Program NUREG-0661 and the Pilgrim Plant Unique Analysis Reports of the Toms Suppression Chamber and Torus Attached Piping, Ref. 3b) and 3c).

l 2.1 Load Definitions l Loads for the new strainer were developed based on existing MK 1 Containment Program loadings. Loads considered in the strainer analysis included LOCA jet, LOCA bubble, pool swell, condensation oscillation (CO), chugging and SRV discharge line T-Quencher-

! jet and bubble. Computer codes developed by General Electric for calculation of hydrodynamic load on torus internal structures were no longer available, and new strainer 1 loads were estimated by scaling of previously calculated loads or additional load i calculations. Scaling was performed using fundamental hydraulic relationships for l various locations of the new strainer. Details of this portion of the analysis are in Ref.

l 2a).

2.2 Load Calculation - Strainer Beam Using the methodology described in 2.1, loads were calculated for the beam strainer installed bemeen ring girders. Each of the two strainers includes a core beam with three weldolets. The welde!ets provide a means to attach the branch pipes to the toms nozzles.

The stacked disks attached to the core beam are eccentric in the vertical direction.

Connections of the branch pipes to the toms nozzles are designed so there is no load transfer from the strainer to the nozzles. This is accomplished by providing a range of free lateral and axial movement in the branch pipe connection. Thermal expansion of the strainer is not restrained because one end connection is fixed and the other end allows sliding movement. Loads acting perpendicular to the core beam as well as loads acting in an axial direction were calculated. The MK 1 hydrodynamic as well as seismic loads acting on the strainer were calculated. These loads were used to design the new strainers.

l In addition the calculated loads were used to quantify the increase in stress to existing structures. During the course of the analysis many conservatisms were used. Details of the calculations and a description of the conservatisms are in Ref. 2b).

l l

l- 2.3 Structural Evaluation Strainer Beam L

l

' Calculated loads described in 2.2 were applied to the strainer core pipe. The core pipe was treated as a linear support structure because the primary loading is bending. Loading in each normal direction was applied and considered separately. These loads were then combined per the MK 1 Containment Program load combination methodology. Virtual mass and end connections were varied to bound the possible frequency range of the strainer. A virtual mass between 1.2 and 2.0 was considered. The Mk 1 Program virtual 48 L

1/11/99 mass for a solid cylinder was 2.0 but due to the disk perforations the strainer virtual mass would be less than two. This was confirmed by testing of strainers with perforated disks.

Stresses in the core pipe were determined to be within code allowable limits. Details of the core pipe stmetural evaluation are in Ref. 2c).

2.4 Stacked Disk Design / Structural Evaluation MK 1 Containment loads were for the strainer stacked disks were calculated and a stress analysis was for the various disk configurations was performed. Loads both perpendicular to and along the axis of the beam were calculated as described in 2.2.

Strainer loads acting perpendicular to the core pipe were used to generate pressure loads on the perforated disk plates. This loading did not result in significant forces in the axial direction. Loads in the axial direction were asymmetric and resulted in net perpendicular loads on the disk. Several disk configurations were evaluated. End disks, the begining and end of a cluster were designed for the greater of the perpendicular loads, axial loads or maximum differential due to pump How. Reinforcing spokes in the disk stacks were designed to withstand axial end loads for end disks or axial drag loads acting along the outer perimeter of the disks. Calculated stress levels meet the acceptance criteria for MK 1 hydrodynamic loads Details of the stacked disk evaluation are in Ref. 2d).

2.5 Strainer End Support Structural Evaluation The end bracket assemblics of the strainer are welded to the ends of the core pipe and interlock with the suppon brackets on the ring girders. One end bracket is restrained in three directions and the opposite end bracket has a free range of axial movement to allow for thermal expansion. The end bracket analysis utilized finite element techniques and end bracket assemblies were treated as plate and shell supports per ASME III Subsection NF. Calculated stresses for the end brackets were within Code allowable limits for the loding conditions. Details of the strainer end bracket evaluation are in Ref. 2e).

2.6 Ring Girder Mounting Brackets Mounting brackets were bolted to the ring girders to support the strainer assembly. There are brackets on the front and back side of each ring girder where the strainer end brackets attach. The front and rear brackets are through bolted to the ring girders and the strainer end brackets interlock with the front mounting brackets. The brackets are designed to support the strainers and to also stiffen the ring girder and distribute the ring girder loads.

Braces are attached between the back bracket and T-Quencher support at one location to stiffen the ring girder.

The brackets and support braces were evaluated for loads on bolting, bracket / brace stresses and weld stesses per ASME III Subsection NF. Stresses were with Code allowable limits for the loading conditions. Details of the ring girder mounting brackets are in Ref. 20.

49

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

t I l e 1/11/99 .

l l

2.7 Evaluation of Strainer Imads on Torus Structure Effects of the new strainers on the torus ring girders, ring girder welds, and SRV T- 1

- Quencher support beam were evaluated for MK 1 loads applied to the strainer. Results ;

show that the torus and affected structures are within Code allowable limits. Imads ;

. resulting from the new strainers were combined with existing MK 1 torus structure loads.

Details of the evaluation are in Ref. 2g).

2.8 Evacuation of Branch Piping Assembly i

Branch piping from the strainers to the torus ECCS suction nozzles was evaluation for the !

M K 1 loads. Included were the weldolets on the strainer core pipe, flanges , flange I bolting, and piping including the flexible / slip joint assembly. Each of the two strainer !

assemblies has three piping connections for 2 RHR and 1 Core Spray suctions. There is a weldolet with a flange at each strainer connection. A piping run with flanges at each end l and a slip joint in between connects the stainer nozzle to the corresponding toms nozzle.

l The slip joints allow a free range of lateral as well as axial displacement to prevent load transfer to the torus nozzles. Details of the evaluation are in Ref. 2h).

2.9 As-Built Evaluation The strainers ~were installed under the BECo Plant Design Change'(PDC 96-32) process and construction variations from the specified design configuration were evaluated.

Stress levels for the as-built configuration were reviewed and are within Code allowable limits Detads of the as-built reconciliations are in Ref. 2i).

50

1/11/99 1

E. REFERENCES ,

1. Debris Generation / Transport & Head Loss f

The following debris generation / transport and strainer head loss calculations were l perfumed by Duke Engineering & Services and Innovative Technology Solutions l (ITS). ,

l a) Calculation No M900, Rev 0,3-D Model of Insulated Piping inside the l l Drywell at Pilgrim Station (DE&S Calculation No,2552.F02-01 Rev 0) i L b) Calculation No M898, Rev 0. Estimation of Debris Generation and Transport l to the Suppression Pool Following a LOCA at Pilgrim Nuclear Station (DE&S l Calculation No,2552.F02-02 Rev 0) j c) Calculation No M897, Rev 2, Pilgrim Nuclear Plant: ECCS Strainer Performance Analysis (DE&S Calculation No. 2552.F02-03 Rev 2) l i

?

< 2. Strainer /MK 1 Containment Structural Analysis l

l Strainer and torus structural analyses were performed by Altran Corporation and are j listed below. !

i l a) Calculation No M756, Rev. O, Load Definitions for Various Configurations '

(Altran Calc. 96116-C-01 Rev 0) b) Calculation No M757, Rev. O, Load Computation of the Horizontal ECCS l Suction Strainer Between Ring Girders (Altran Calc. 96116-C-03 Rev 1) c) Calculation No M758, Rev. 0, Evaluation of Core Beam Between Ring Girders (Altran Calc. 96116-C-04 Rev 1) d) Calculation No M759, Rev. 0, Disk Assembly (Altran Calc. 96116-C-05 Rev 1) I e) Calculation No M760, Rev. O, Bracket Assembly & Cap Weld Evaluation (Altran Calc. 96116-C-% Rev 0) i f) Calculation No M761, Rev. 0, Core Beam Mounting Bracket to Ring Girder Evaluation (Altran Calc. 96116-C-07 Rev 0) g) Calculation No M762, Rev. 0, Strainer Loading on the Torus Structure (Altran Calc. 96116-C-08 Rev 1) h) Calculation No M763, Rev. 0, Evaluation of Branch Piping Assembly (Altran Calc. 96116-C-09 Rev 0) i) Calculation No M764 Rev. 0, ECCS Suction Strainer Replacement -

i Engineering Change Notice Evaluations (Altran Calc. 96116-C-10 Rev. 0) e 51 l

1/11/99

3. MK 1 Containment Documents The original MK 1 Containment Plant Unique Analysis was performed by Teledyne ,

Engineering Services and the MK 1 summary / governing documents are listed below.

a) NUREG 0661, Mk 1 Containment Long-Term Program b) TR-5310-1, Rev. 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report for the Torus Suppression Chamber for Pilgrim Station Unit I c) TR-5310-2, Rev.1, Plant Unique Analysis Report for the Toms Attached i Piping for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station ;

1

4. Owner's Desien Documents j The following are BECo documents related to the strainer design, analysis, fabrication and installation.

a) M-618, Rev. E2, Pilgrim Unit 1 Specification for the Design and Fabrication of the Core Spray and Residual Heat Removal Suction Strainers {

b) PDC 96-32, Residual Heat Removal and Core Spray Suction Strainer Replacement c) M-662, Rev E3 Calculation of RHR and Core Spray Pump NPSH and Suction Pressure Drop i

5. BWROG Documents The applicable BWROG documents are listed below.

a) NEDO-32686, Rev 0, Utility Resolution Guidelines for ECCS Suction Strainer Blockage, BWROG I

l 4

l 52

ATTACHMENT 1 1

- )

k ...

e 4 k:M,8h N -

f s937'4- .-

i,

- i s pd CUTAWAY SHOWING STRAINER ASSEMBLY BOTTOM OF TO.RUS BAY 4 s

p 6

N 1

! i 8

li i l 1i ,

ili

' ' 6 $ed jig! $

, !, I

\ / .s

, /

$ gs l

\

I

/ 4 . g

. 7 A\/# l l

O

-f/xtc I

!8

/ \

l

~i G

l s

l e ':

j v A i ,

jl !s ,,

il 81 1 1 ,

isfn i e i

I hi l !!

i

ML20202B508

Contents

Text

=

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20202B508

Text

=

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search