ML20203K480
| ML20203K480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1997 |
| From: | Chris Miller, Powers T, Smalec L FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203K477 | List: |
| References | |
| M97-0088, M97-0088-R00, M97-88, M97-88-R, NUDOCS 9803050100 | |
| Download: ML20203K480 (26) | |
Text
-
e 7
e INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE j
v r
A c= ~
j q"""'""
Nuclear Engineering NT5A 240 1628 j [mV office MAC Telephone j
EO i
SUBJECT:
Crystal River Unit 3 Quality Document Transmittal Analysis / Calculation l
l To: Records Management NR2A The following analysis / calculation package is submitted as the QA Record copy:
(>0CNO trPC DOCUMENT IDENitriC ATION NVMBtru htV sylitMtti TOTAL PAGts tRANtuiritD M97-0088 0
DH, MU, BS M
~2.98, i
l TITLt i
Hydraulic Analysis for LPl Hotleg injection to RCS l
s I
l
)
kWD$ CDtNTirY ktvWORDS ron t AtIR FUnitvAu Boron Precipitation, backflow, NPSH, EAhtFiktrintNtt$ OR6 tit $ 4 5f PH)M ARY fitt he6Ti EOP 14 51 5000519 00 VEND IVENDr.R NAMti l VENDOR DOCUMENT NUMBER (t,.uttFJ
$UPERSEDID DOCUMENTS (DXRErl FPC l
NA NA i
DHP 1 A l DHV 110 ll DHHE 1 A i
j l
DHP-1 B l DHV-111 l DHHE 1B j
MUP 1 A/1B/1C l DHV 003 l
BSP 1 A/1B ll DHV-004 ll 1
I f
I I
I couvtwis ais*Gt RtsTReicNs. PRonR1tT ARv. nc i l
Hydraulic analysis sheets are included only in the Records Management copy of calculation j
NOTE:
Use Tag number only for valid tag numbers (i.e., RCV-8, SWV 34, l'CH-99), otherwise; use Part number l
field (i.e., CSC14599, AC1459). If more space is required, write "Sco Attachment" and list on separate j
sheet.
otSIGN ENGINEtR ATE VER MC ATION ENGiNrrR 0 if SUPERV!S Ur (ARtNG Mg(fg DATt T. R. Powers L M. Smalec f % j7 g
1 cc: Nuclear Projects (If MARICGWR/PEERE Calculatior. Review form Part 111 actions required Oyes O No 4
Return to Service Related)
O Yoo B No (If Yes, send copy of the form to Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and a Supervisor, Config. Mgt, info.
copy of the Calculation to the Responsible Organization (s) identified in j (
~2 Mgr., Nucf. Operations Eng. (Originals w/ attach Part lli on the Calculation Review form.)
j' K. R. Campbell (NR38)
G. A. Becker (NU47) a 9803050100 980227 PDR ADOCK 05000302 l
P
,,PDR
)..........
ANALYSIS / CALC,ULATlON
SUMMARY
A<
uM aM 0!$ctPONt CONTMOLNO.
RtytSION LEVtt (4 j ooCUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBLR M
97 0088 0
I mie etAsmcatioN icseen oNo Hydraulic Analysis for LPl Hotleg injection to RCS E Safety Related O Non Safety Related MAhtet0WntitRt NUM8tR NA vtNDOR DOCUMENT NUMetR NA APPROVAL PRINTED SIGNATURES NAME Design Engineer
,Qhmg T. R. Powers Date
_ 8/29/97 Verification Engineer Mhd[JA L. M. Smalec Date 8/29/97, Supervisor
[/g[
M, M44fn Da1e fl7lq ~)
ntMS mtvibtD
(
InitialIssue of Calculation
~*
Puheobt
SUMMARY
This calculation provides a hydraulic model of the LPI injection to the RCS via an idle Decay Heat Pump and the
'dropline. NPSH for the operating LPI is confirmed to satisfy NPSH requirements and a review of the suitability 4
of Decay Heat system components is performed to assure acceptable operation of the system under backflow conditions. This analysis is performed for Boron Precipitation mitigation, PtbuLT 5 6VVMARY The Decay Heat system is capable of providing 500 - 1000 gpin of flow, via the dropline, to the RCS.
The NPSH for the Deca) Heat Pump is acceptable to prevent cavitation within the pump, 4
Decay Heat system components are capable of operating satisfactorily under backflow conditions.
1 I v
Rev 3 H
=
(
%T %,ide CALCULATION REVIEW cAu:ev nu Page 1 of 2 QI.4cucvwonomev.
"1 M97 0089, Rev. O PART I -
DESIGN ASSUMPTION / INPUT REVIEW: APPLICABLE @ Yes O No The following organizations have reviewed and concur with the desig'1 assumptions and inputs identified for this calculation:
Nuclear Plant Technical Support h Nauty N.b/ 4.5 f!26!??
(/
System Engr Nuclear Plant Operations MA-E o3,, ins 5,8.J.S..
/-
/
sa-eemw MM
&k, cou,a.se.
syn w.,om.
PART11-RESU+.TS REVIEW: APPLICABLE @ Yes O No Thu fodowing organizations have reviewed and concur with the results of th;s calculation and understand the actions which the organizations must take to im lement the results.
Nuc! oar Plant Technical Support
~
L h e<tu b.b/*J
//2Ch7 Systern Engr
$$"*" D(
W Nuclear Plant Operations s,ne,4om.
()
//t Nuclear Plant Maintenance O Yes E N/A Nuclear Licensed Operator Training O Yes
@ N/A Manager, Site Nuclear Services
- o=*
O Yes
@ N/A Sr. Radiation Protution Engineer O Yu
@M OTHERS: f~ W8YATl0A l
EO s,4,.
l aa s,_.....
Rev. 317
_t.,
M CALCULATION REVIEW Paga 2 of 2
~
j cuevumowwomtv.
i' 4 36 M97 0088, Rev. O m-PART lli CONFIGURATION CONTROL: APPLICABLE ~
Yes O No The following is a list of Plant procedures / lesson plans /other documents and Nuclear Engineering calculations which require updating based on calculation results review:
l 122.gument Date Reauired Responsible Ornanization EOP 14 11/15/97 Operations (Becker)
Upon completion, forward a copy to the Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Assuranca Group for tracking of actions if any items are Identified in Part 111.
(
PART IV - NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION REVIEW 1
The responsible Design Engineer mu*t thoroughly review the below listed documents to assess if the calculation requires revision to these documents, if "Yes," the change authorizations must be listed below e.ad issued concurrently with the ct.:.ulation.
Enhareed Design Basis Document O Yes S No UC81 Vendor Quahficatiot. Package IV0P'l FSAR O Yes @ No D"**)
Topical Design Basis Doc. O Yes S No FC8)
Improved Tech. Specification O Yes S No h"*'l E/SOPM O Yes S NoGC88 Improvad Tech. Spec. Bases O Yes S No D"*'l Other Documents review 3d:
Config. Mgmt. Info. System O Yes S No 8C'o
O Yes O No icmNot Doc. MFiMNco Analysis bas!s Docunient C Yes @ No UC'>
O Yes O No ICHANQ4 DOC RIFF MNCli Design Dasis Document O ses S No FC')
O Yta O No ICHANGE DOC NFifq(N([6 Appendix R Fire Study 0 Yes @ No UC
O Yes O No (CHANGE DOC. M'EMNC0 Fire Hazardous Analysis O Yes S No FC'l C Yes O No (CHANG 4 DOC MFINNCD NFPA Code Conformance Docume 4 O Yes S No UC'i O Yes O No ICHANGE DOC. MelfiENCil PART V PLANT REVIEWS / APPROVALS FOR INSTRUMENT SETPOINT CHANGE PRC/DNPO approvalis nquired if a setpoint is to be physically changed in the plant through the NEP 213 process.
PRC Review Required Ye
@ No PRC Chairman
/Dats
(,
DNPO Review Required O Yes
@ No DNFO
/Date DESIGN ENGINE (R DAri DtS'GN ENGINE.84 PeiNTED NAME M
29!9?
T. R. Powers new. 3:11
m.
- ,f'g CALCULATION VERIFICATION REPORT Crystal River Unit 3 q
-v C AlvtRAP.P RM Page 1 of I cucuties uvwca M97 0008 Q E \\). Q PROJ4 cf /1116i Hydraulle Analysis for LPI Hotleg injection to RCS YES NO N/A
- 1. td C
Are inputs, including codes, standards, regulatory requirements, procedures, data, and Engineering methodology correctly selected and applied?
2.
O O Have assumptions been identified? Are they reasonable and justified? (See NEP 101, V.c, for discussion on references).
3.
O O Are references properly identified, correct, and complete? (See NEP 101, V.c., for
, discussion on assumptions and justification.)
- 4. O O
h Have applicable construction and operating experiences been considered?
5.
O O Was an appropriate Design Analysis / Calculation method used?
6.
O O In cases where computer sof tware was used, has the program been verified or reverified in cecordance with NEP 135 for safety related design applications and/or are inputs, formulas, and outputs associated with spreadsheets accurate?
i 7.
O O is the output reasonable compared to inputs?
j 8.
tu O
O Has technical design information provided via letter, REA, IOC or telecon bv other disciplines or programs been verified by that discipline or program?
p tY O
O Has technical design inftemMion provided vid htw or telecon from an external Engineeri.1g Organization or vendor been confirmed and accepted by FPC?
- 10. O O Do the calculation results indicate a non-conforming condition exists? If "Ves,"
immediately notify the responsible Supervisor.
11, O
O Do the results require a change to other Engineering documents? If "Yes," have these documents been identified for revision on the Calculation Review Form?-
I have performed a verification on the subject calculation package and find the results acceptable, viancuiostu w th is winvmon.uuc an us;/no out hM M
- b. N.6 mat 4<*. -
O Asv 347 RET: Opt. anal RESP: Nuclear Engmeering 912 247
. ~.
s'" % @
I DESIGN ANALYSIS / CALCULATION Crystal River Unit 3 otwnu Page 1
of 5
DocVMEVT IDeNithC AtION NO.
htVil10N M97 0088 0
l, PURPOSE This calculation provides the hydraulic analysis that demonstrates the acceptability of backflowirig through the dropline to the hot leg of the RCS for the purpose of precluding the occurrence of boron precipitation.
The calculation provides a PIPF-PC hydraulic model of the lineup that will be used to provide this injection path through an idle Low Pressure injection pump, through the dropline, and into the RCS.
The NPSH and NPSHn for the Low Pressure injection pump *at provides forward direction flow will also A
be evaluated.
This calculation also documents a review of components within the Decay Heat Removal system to ensure that com, snents are capable of operating acceptably under backflow conditions.
- 11. RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS DHP 1 A/1B is capable of providing 500 1000 gpm of flow through the dropline into the hotleg of the RCS over the entire range of RCS pressures for which backflow is required to mitigate concerns of boron precipitatL.,.
Each PIPF model run contain a message indicating that the pump in branch 58 did not converge to 0.1 ft.
The pump in this branch is the mod led Building Spray pump. This loop exists in the model to provide 1326 gpm flow from the RB sump, through the common LPl suction line, and to the BS pump. That th's loop does not converge does not affect the convergence or results of the LPIloops.
Adequate NPSHA exists to prevent cavitation of the forward flowing LPI (Decay Heat) pump while providing 500 1000 gpm backflow through the droprne with maximum LP! flow limited to 3050 gpm.
Components within the Decay Heat system are capab e of performing required safety functions for an extended perico under backflow conditions without concern for component failure.
Ill. DESIGN INPUTS 1.
The Decay Heat hydraulic model developed in M94-0047, as shown on Ref.1, was modified for use in this analysis. A diagram of the modified modelis shown on Attachment 1.
2.
The pressure drop through the backflowing, non-operating LPI pump is a linear function of flow through the pump casing. This input is provided by the pump manufacturer, as shown on Attachment 2 and graphed on Attachment 4.
3.
Required minimum backflow is 500 gpm, as stated in Attachment 3.
4.
Maximum flow through the forward operating LPI pump is 3056 gpm.
This is ased on NPSH considerations determined in Ref. 6.
. _ _ IV. ASSUMPTIONS
\\.
1.
The worst case condition for NPSH for the LPl pump would le maximum flow condition through the 4
LPIpump.
2.
HPlis assumed to be in Piggyback mode, at a flowrote of 600, lrough the HPl pump.
Rev 615 RET: Ofe of Plant Ri$P; Nwcha, ("06"9
A
-(
N DESIGN ANALYSIS / CALCULATION L
Crystal River Unit 3 otsac rau W.
Page 2
of 5
DOCWINT tDLNTIFC Ah0N NO.
mfV@0N M97-0088 0
3.
A single Builling Spray train is assumed to be operating at a flowrate of 1326 gpm. This BS train takes suction from the HB sump on the same piping as the forward flowing LPI pump and must be considered when evaluating Decay Heat Pump NPSH. Since the characteristics of the discharge of this BS pump are 4
not significant for the analysis being performed, an LPI pump curve has been used to obtain the 1326 gpm flow.
4.
Reactor Building pressure shall be modeled at 0 psi.
5.
The flowrote through the holleg injecticn shall be in the range of 500 1000 gpm as required by Reference 3.
6.
Flow through the L*l pump will be held to approximately F.050 gpm, in order not to exceed NPSH.
A 7.
Flow through the windmilling LPI pump must be within approximately 50 gpm of the value used in the '.dat file in order for the error in the calculated pressure drop through the pump to be sufficiently small as to justify leaving the model unchanged.
8.
The RCS pressure used in this evaluation shall be 0 120 psig. Attachment 22 shows that at 145 psig RCS pressure, the backflow line is not capable of supplying 500 gpm. The case in this attachment ossumes that a flow of 500 gpm is entering the core via HPl and 500 gpm is entering the core via the normal LPl injection flow path. These LPl and HPl flow values have not been adjusted for any instrument errors.
9.
When the term
- normal LPI flow path" is used, it refers to the core injection path normally used for LPl flow.
V. REFERENCES 1.
FPC Dwg 310 641, Rev.1, Decay Heat Removal 2.
FPC Dwg 302 641, Sheet 3, Rev 40, Decay Heat Removal 3.
Fromatome Technologies letter ING 97-2747 R.J. Schomaker to K.R. Campbell, dated July 11,1997 4.
Ingersoil Dresser Pump Company letter, P.J. Kasztejna to K. Campbell, dated June 26,1997 5.
M94-0047. Rev. 2, *CR3 Decay Heat Removal S'
.em Hydraulic Studies" l
6.
M90 0021, Rev. 8,
- Building Spray and Decay Heat Pump NPSH A/R" 7.
M90 0023, Rev. 4, " Reactor Building Flonding" l-8.
FPC Drawing 304 646, Rov. 7, " Reactor Building Recirculation Line A" 9.
FPC Drawing 304 647, Rev. 7, " Reactor Building Recircutution Line B" j
(,,10.
Frematome Technologies document 51 5000519 00, Rev. O, " Boron Dilution by Hot Leg injection."
l l
l Mov 6/95 MT; Lefe of Plant RtlP; Natner Eng+ nee *9
, - - -.. - -. - _.. ~,
_____.______=_________ _ _ _ ___ _
e~ )N DESIGN ANALYSIS / CALCULATION b/ * * " * " " ' '
Crystal River Unit 3 otr.acau g%.
Page 3
of 5
DOCVUtNT OtNilhC ATON NO.
REVISION M97-0088 0
VI, DETAILED CALCULATIONS OR ANALYSES EVALUATION OF ABILITY OF LPl TO SUPPLY 500 1000 GPM THROUGH DHOPLINE Tha model developed in M94 0047 was used as the starting point for the backflow model. Loops were created to provide for backflow through DHP 18, the recirculation line around DHP 10, through the puction piping and DHV-3/4, to the RCS hot leg.
A flow to a makeup pump, in piggyback configuration, and a building spray pump were also added to the model and appropriate loops generated for these pumps. Dummy nodes were created on the discharge of these nodes so that Decay Heat system piping pressures could be accurately calculated.
The resultant modelis shown pictorially on Attachment 1.
This model was changed for RCS pressures varying from 0 psig to 120 psig and rerun for various RCS pressures.
At higher pressures when 1000 gpm flow through the dropline could not be achieved, flow through the normal LPl injtetion path was throttled in order to maintain dropline flow greater than 500 gpm. At lower pressures, flow through DHV 110/111 was throttled to maintain 1000 gpm through the dropline. Maximum flow through the LPl pump was limited to approximateN 3050 gpm.
Results of these model runs atu
.3marized as follows:
RCS Pressuro Dmpline Flow Normal LPI Flow LPl Pumn Flow e,1tachment C
0 999.8 1350.1 3048.3 TRPO4GZ 10 999.9 1350.1 3048.5 TRPO4H 20 1000.4 1350.0 3048.8 TRPO4F 30 1000.2 1349.2 3047.9 TRPO4E 50-1000.9 1350.1 3043.6 TRPO4D 65 1000.o 1349.9 3048.6 TRPO1DD 70 1000.1 1349.6 3048.1 TRPO4A B0 990.6 1350.5 3030.5 TRPO4C 85 834.8 1525.2 3059.6 TRP02BB 90 698.3 1650.0 3048.0 TRP03AA 95 600.7 1700.6 2999.9 TRP02AA 100 595.8 1575.1 2872.0 TRP01A 110 596.9 1275.3 2575.4 TRP03BB 120 583.8 1000.3 2189.3 TRP01BB These model runs show that the operating LPl pump is capable of supplying 500 1000 gpm of flow through the dropline throughout the range of RCS pressures for which backflow will be required.
Each PIPF model run contain a message indicating that the pump in branch 58 did not converge to 0.1 ft. The pump in this branch is the modeled Building Spray pump. This loop exists in the model to provide 1326 gpm flow from the RB sump, through the common LPl suction line, and to the BS pump. That this loop does not converge
- does not affect the convergence or resuln of the LPl loops.
NPSH EVALUATION Rsi, 6 previously evaluated NPSH requirements for the Decay Heat Pumps taking suction from the RB sump at a flow rate of 3056 gpm and concluded that adequate NPSH was available to preclude cavitiation within the pumps.
Rev Sil MT Life of Piant MtP:Nuclea, te g.nsering
S"9orida
% war DESIGN ANALYSIS / CALCULATION
"~"""
Crystal River Unit 3
==
g.g Page 4
of 5
DC;vuf Nf IDthi thC AtON NO Rrv$0N M97 0088 0
This conclusion was reverified in this calculation by determining the LPI (Decay Heat) pump NPSH4 at an RCS pressure of 85 psi. This pressure resulted in the largest LPl flow in the previously evaluated cases.
Ref. 6 provides that the minimum post LOCA flood level in the RB is 97.893' Examining the previously run hydraulic models and adjusting the surap level height to the difference between 97.893' and the suction centerline (86.25' per Refs. 8 & 9) to 12.457', the model was rerun (the height difference of the dummy fluid used to complete the loop was also adjusted so that there were no elevation changes around any loops). Results showed the operating LPI pump flowing at 3069.4 gpm and the pressure at the pump eye to be 6.36 psig. Since the fluid temperature was assumed to be 212*F, adding 14.7 psi to this pressure to convert to paia and subtracting the same value for vapor pressure resulted in an NPSH of 6.36 psi, or 15.31 f t (6.36 lb/in' x 144 in'/ft' + 59.83 lb/f t' 4
water density @ 212"F = 15.31 f t).
The NPSHn for the LPI pump @ 3056 gpm is 13.5 ft per Ref 6 and examination of the NPSHn curve of Ref. 6 shows that the NPSHn @ 3070 gpm is approximately 13.6 tu 13.7 f t.
Adequate NPSH is, therefore, available for the LPJ (Decay Heat) pumns.
The model run for this NSPH evaluation is included es Attachment TRP02BBB.
COMPONENT EVALUATION This portion of the calculation documents the acceptability of system components for use in a system backflow
- ondition. Framatome Technologies will review core components for the effects of reverse flow. Therefore, reactor vessel internal componenti, are not included in this evaluation. For piping and gate valves, the effects of a backflow condition are insignificant to the components. The critical components for review are:
The windmilling decay heat pump, effects upon seals, motor, and potential pressure drops e
The control valve (DHV 110/111) which will be used to control flow in the reverse direction Hoat exchangers(DHHE 1 A/10) e Ef fects upon the Decay Heat Pump seals in backflow conditions has previously been evaluated by the pump manufacturer. This evaluation is included as Attachment 5. This evaluation concludes that the Decay Heat Pumps seals will perform acceptability under 500 - 1000 gpm backflow conditions.
The differential pressure drop across the windmilling decay heat pump is linear, as indicated by Ref. 4 (Attachment
- 2) and has been plotted on Attachment 4.
This linear relationship was used in the development of the hydraube models previously desenbed.
Windmilling an AC motor at speeds of up to 890 rpm (50% of 1780 rpm) does not create problems for the motor or bearings, but cautions are required to prevent attempts to inadvertently start the pump while at high reverse speeds.
The ability of the control valves DHV 110/111 to regulate flow in the 500 1000 gpm range was addressed with the valve supplier via telecon. The vendor confirmed that the valves would perform acceptably for an extended penod. The Record of Telephone Conversation for this callis included as Attachment 6.
. Hydraulically, DHHE 1 A/1B are unaffected by the direction of flow on the tube side of the heat exchangers. The heat transfer characteristics of the heat exchangers would be significantly affected. However, no credit is being taken for any heat transfer through the reverse flowing DHHE. The amount ei heat transfer through this heat exchanger is less than the amount when tube flow is in the normal direction since DHHE 1 A/1B are counterflow heat exchangers. Heat transfer to the SW system is, the'efore, bound by existing heat transfer analysis.
Rev 815 RETI Ute of Plant Ri$P; Nuclear Engmeemg
p
- ( j)%'"*"""
DESIGN ANALYSIS / CALCULATION
\\
Crystal River Unit 3 t
ocr.acm d
Page 5
of 5
l oocuututiotwte w on no Rev+ow M97 0008 0
This review of components subjected to reverse flow conditions indicates that all components will perform acctptability under reverse flow conditions of 500 1000 gpm.
Vll. ATTACHMENTS 1,
PIPF.P/; model for backflow through DHP 18, DHV 3/4 to the RCS hotleg.
2.
Ingersoll Dresser Pump Company letter, P.J. Kasztejna to K. Campbell, dated June 26,1997 3.
Framatome Technologies letter INS 97 2747, R.J. Schomaker to K.R. Campbell, dated July 11,1997 4.
Graph of IDP provided reverse flow differential pressure through a decay heat pump.
5.
John Crane inc letter, Lemberger to Saltsman, dated August 13,1996 6.
Record of Telephone Conversation, T. R. Powers (FPC) with Gary Hillis (Crane Valve),7/7/97 7.
Attachmer3t file TRPO4GZ, RCS pressure O psig 8,
Attachment file TRPO4H, RCS pressure 10 psig 9.
Attachment file TRPO4F, RCS pressure 20 psig 10.
Attachment file TRPO4E, RCS pressure 30 psig 11, Attachment file TRPO4D, RCS presswe 50 psig 12.
Attachment file TRP01DD, RCS pressure 65 psig 13, Attachment file TRPO4A, RCS pressure 70 psig 14.
Attachment file TRPO4C, RCS pressure 80 psig
.15.
Attachment file TRP02BB, RCS pressure 85 psig
' 10.
Attachment file TRP03AA, RCS pressure 90 psig 17.
Attachment file TRP02AA, RCS pressure 95 psig 18.
Attachment file TRP01 A, RCS pressure 100 psig 19.
Attachment file TRP03BB, RCS pressure 110 psig 20.
Attachment file TRP01BB, RCS pressure 120 psig 2i.
. Attachment file TRP02BBB, NPSH evaluation at RCS pressure of 85 psig 22.
Attachment file TRPSPEC, RCS pressure 145 psig b
Rev.19%
Rtti Lde cf P:ent ht$P: Nwc4a, Engmeemg
Nr DESIGN ANALYSIS / CALCULATION i (;Q,,j Crystal River Unit 3 omcm Page 1
of 1
1 ooevuem enmaicmou se.
nevision M97 00(
0 l
Modified Model for Boron Precipitatk n Mitigation Backflow through DHP 18, DHV 4, DHV 3 to RCS Hotleg m
- S
@ S--@ -@} y,::m, w
_g m.~v.a g-@
Sk ev.its
~
e, n s k:
"~
l ewsr m: + M.S 4 Q~-@@@
t w,
=-
m+
yej ws 1[h [
S d
3
- i, is in
@Y u...
a cc p v..
e ~= =
)%
6 e
3
,,,........ ~.
=
S 75
? rnVP g
Q)'
b O
n
- V j
,a wo..a
.3 w,.. y
-@-qH=uo qq g
-GHa "o g O' 4@
u
,d) #,,
g
- v >
y j
~
6,
'e 4,
.e
@"g c2
,, v (O
b')
' %gh n,.ii eums o
2 s '(n' Q"~b
N*
l f b ISR t
b y ji b
S Y
b
-e
- m i r-8 v.,....
g C
'W N
s Inger$4ll* Dresser PWay Cefnpesy
)'
l Bervices Bostness Unit P42 MemorialParkway l
i l
Thillipsburg,NJ 08865 D.
I June 26,1997 Attachmenj'__ L
" *p"a g e-I __ o f i
Kevin Campbell Fic* a Power Corp, Crystal River Unit 3 15760 Power Line St.
Crysth! River. FL 34428 Re:
your 11 June 07 Fax
Subject:
Vorification of Roverso Flow
Dear Kevin:
l t
This lotter will confirm previous fax submitt!ng reverse flow, spped and head conditions forjzero torque conditions.
GPM Head Drop RevershSpeed 1000 18%
50j'o 500 8%
28"4 300 4%
18fo Those conditions are basis the 8HN Decay Heat Pump, casts a design (100%)
condition:
3000 GPM 320 neet TDH 1780 RPM Sincerol,
j
$Yel 6/5s/h7 Paul J. Kasztejna ManagerofAftermark$t Engineering Supervising Design Engineer W,
PJK:kg Ingersoll. Rand Pacific Worthington Plouger Scienco Jeumont chnelder Pumps l
aus l kj/
F R AM ATO M E
'R TECHHOLOGit5
/
)
Integrated Nuclear Services b
July 11,1007 g
8 INS 97 2747 W
Mr. K. R. Campbell Florida Power Corporation CrystalRiver Energy Complex 15760 West Power Line Street Crystal River, FL 34428 6708
Subject:
FTI Job 4110100. Long Term Boron Control Following SBLOCA "ECCS and Hot Leg injection Flows for post.LOCA Boron Control" Gentlemen:
In a fu sent to Ed Organ, (FTI) on July 1,1997, K. R. Campbell (FPC) requested FTl to proside a letter defining the minimum required Dows for both ECCS (LPI) and hot leg irsectior, by July I1,1997. The following material was prepared per that request.
FT1 has performed numerous analyses and provided licensmg support for CR 3 and the other B&W Owners to demonstrate adequate boron dilution following a postulated cold leg pump discharge (CLPD)ioss of coolant accident (LOCA). During March of this year, a summary was sent to the NRC to report the latest sct of scncric analyscs for small and large LOCAs. The largest LOCAs quickly depressurize and reach an equilibrium with the containment pressure within 20 to 25 seconds. These postulated break sizes in the CLPD pipe have the lowest long-term saturadon ternperatures and correspondingly the lowest homn solubility limit that ennld he achieved within 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> post LOCA, without credit taken for reactor vessel vent valve (RVVV)
. liquid entralrunent or hot leg norr.le gap flow. The NRC has c.qnessed unwillingness ~lo allow credit for the het les nozzJe gap Dow dilution except as a backup to active dilution methods.
Credit for RVVV liquid entrainment could be taken for the largest LOCAs, but as the break size decreases, so will the liquid r vainment The i.BLOCA analyses did not credit the RVVV mtrainment to bound the spectrum of possible break sizes. This conservative approach defined tlie udidmusii time fun opeinius Inhialtuu of an active buron dilution mechanism at 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> post.
LDLOCA. For the larger break sizes, in which the reactor coolant system (RCS) and containment pressure are in near equilibrium, the dump-to-sump method through the decay heat drop line can he used without c.cnecrn for sump screen integrity. This is not the case fer the smaller LOCA:
i with elevated RCS pressures.
id Attachment J
Page_I Of 6
rn9l.C Otry HeVO 3315 Old Forest Road, P.O. Box 10935, Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935 Telephone: 8o4 833 3000 Fax: 804 433 3663 Internet: http://www.frarnatech.com
SBLOCA analpo peiformed for the boroc dilution task identified that smalle bicuk > lee >
m.
7,$
(located on the bottom of the CLPD piping) would result in a long term RCS pressure holdup related to a quasi-steady balance achieved between the pumped emergency core cooling system (ECCS) flow and the break flow. The SCCS flow would enter the downcomer and condense the core produced steam that passes through the' VVVs. The ECCS inflow rate would exceed the core bolloff rate, with the excess ECCS flowing out of the break once the reactor vessel ls refilled to the break elevation. Breaks of sufficient size can discharge all the excess ECCS not needed to match the core bo!!off, such that the system cannot refill any further. If the downcomer level cannot increase above the bottom of the CLPD nozzle elevation, RVVV liquid overnow cannot occur because of the manometric balances established in the reactor vessel. Without RVVV liquid overflow, core boiling removes the core decay heat, with the RVVV steam tiow acting as the necessary energy transport mechanism to the break location. This boiling to remove decay heat concentrates the boron in the core and upper plesum region. Although cdculations showed that the hot les norde gaps wculd be open and passing sufficient liquid flow to adequately dilute the core boron concentration post LOCA, the NRC 3 unwilling to accept this gap flow in the analyses except as a backup to an active dilution method that may be lost through a single active failure of the decay heat drop line valves or power supply.
Without credi,t for the hot les nozzle gap dilution now, the core bciling has the potential to concentrate all the boron in the BWST, RCS, and CFT in the core region. Comparison of the boric acid solubility in water with the total mass of boron available to the system, shows that the hnrnn would not precipitate at temperatures ahnve 105 F (77. p6) Therefore, to preclude the possibility of boron precipitation, some active dilution method must be initiated prior to reaching these conditions. When the>e corsditions are considered with instrument uncertainty, an active method may be initiated when the RCS is roughly at 100 psia ( 328 F saturation). This temperature is above the design temperature (300 F) for the decay heat removal system, therefore, opening of the decay heat drop line with flow from the hot leg is not a viable solution at this time.
Aatur active dilution method may be available at CR 3 without significant hardware modification. This method uses one operating LPI pump in an alignment in which the LPI provides sucticn to one HPl pump, ECCS injectiori through the CFT nozzle in the piping run of the operating LPI pump, and backflow through the LPI cross connect line backward thrcush the other idle LPI pump back into the hot leg. This alignment reverses the typical flow direction in the decay heat dropline Smcc the LPI tiuid that is injected in the hot leg has passed through the decay heat cooler. there is no longer a problem related to the design temperature in the decay heat drop line.
To validate this boron dilution method, the hot leg injection alignment needs a definition of acceptable ECCS tiow splits bcth tbr core cooling and boron dilution. At an RCS pressure of 75 psia, the LPI pump should be capable of providing at least 2700 gym of flow, If a maximum flow 1
of 600 gpm is assumed for one HPI pump, that leaves 2100 gpm to be split between the LPI nozdc and the hot leg injection path. Allowances must also be made for instrument uncertainty and potential gap flow.
rnW6687Tc70 Attachment 3
Page R of 6 2
g The required hot leg injection flow must exceed the core bolloff rate plus the hot les nuule pp L,
flow rate to init' ate a net reverse flow through the core that would provide long terrn boron dilution. The CR 3 total hot leg gap flow at isothermal conditions at 300 F post SBLOCA is 14.1 lbm/s (101 spm at 140 F)(from FTI Doc.121266110 00 Table 7A). Only one nozzle gap would pass the hot leg injection flow, so only one half, or $1.5 gpm of gap flow should be considtred for a LBLOCA, one-half of the non isothermal steam cooldown is 22.5 lbm/s or 164 gpm (from FTl Doc. 321266110-00 Figure $A). The ECCS injection rates needed to match the 1.2 ANS 1971 decay heat belloff rate at 75 psia and $ hours,24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and I week post LOCA are 191 gpm,119 gpm, and 65 spm, r'spectively, as shown in the following calculations. The calculations also show that core boiling could b-tctally suppressed with core ECCS throughputs of 1208 gpm,751 gptn, and 410 gpm at 75 psia and 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and I week, respectively. Using more realistic decay heat levels (0.75 times the 1.2 ANS 1971 fission product decay plus B&W heavy isotopes), the core boiling could be suppressed with 906,563, and 308 gpm, respecthely.
Suppression of core boiling eliminates the mechanism that conceatrates the boron, thereby addressing the boron concentration control for the duration of the transient.
At 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, the decay heatis at 0.01131
- 2568
- 1.02
- 948 = 28,084 Btu /sec At 100 psia with an ECCS inlet temperature of 140 F, the ECCS flow needed to match core boiloffis W = (28,084)/(1187 - 108) = 26.0 lbm/sec - 190 gal / min Bulk core boiling could be suppressed with an LPI flow of W = (28,084)/(298 - 108) = 147.8 lbm/sec = 1081 gal / min At 75 psla with an ECCS inlet temperature of 140 f, the ECC5 flow needed to match core boiloffis W = (23,084)/(l182 - 108) = 26.1 lbm/see - 191 gal / min Bulk core boiling could be suppressed with an LPl 110w of W - (28,084y(278 108) = 165.2 lbm/sec = 1208 gaFmin At 14.7 psia with an ECCS inlet temperature of 140 F, the ECCS flow needed to match core bodcrfis W = (28,084)/(1151 108) = 26.9 lbm/sec - 197 gal / min Bulk core boiling could be suppressed with an LPI flow of W = (28.084y(181 108) = 384.7 lbm/sec = 2812 gal / min
_._ 3 -
_ _. 69Fcio79 R c(O' ~~~ ~~~ ~ 7 r
_1_.C._.L l A
3
.=
At 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, the decay last is at 0.00703
- 2508
- 1.02
- 948 = 17,457 Bru/sec At 75 pals with an ECCS inlet temperature of 140 F, the ECCS flow needed to match core boiloffis W = (l7,457y(1182 108) = 16.3 lbm/sec = 119 gal / min Bulk core bolling could be suppressed with an LP1 flow of W = (17,457)/(278 - 108) = 102.7 lbm/sec = 751 gal / min At 14.7 psia with an ECCS Inlet temperature of 140 F, the ECCS flow needed to mveh' core belloffis W = (17,457)/(1151 108) = 16.7 lbm/sec = 122 gal / min Bulk core bolling could be suppressed with an LPl flow of W = (17,457)/(181 108) = 239.1 lbm/sec = 1748 gal / min l, > /
At I weck, the dewy heat la ut 0.00384 ' 2368 ' l.02 ' 948 - 9535 Btu />ec At 75 yh with an ECCS inlet temperature of 140 F, the ECCS flow needed to match core bolloffis W = (9535)/(1182 - 108) = 8.88 lbm/sec = 65 gal / min Bulk core boiling could be suppressed with an LPI flow of
- W = (9535)/(278 108) = 56.1 lbm/sec = 410 gal / min At 14.7 psia with an ECCS inlet temperature of 140 F, the ECCS flow needed to match core bolloffis W = (9535yll151 - 108) = 9.14 lbm/sec = 67 gal / min Bulk core bolling could be suppressed with an LPI flow of W = (9535)/(181 - 108) = 130.6 lbm/sec = 955 gal / min
+.
n:w 4
rn97-oo st Kevo u
of 6 Attachment 3
Page s
v y
vvv
---,.w
]
1 l
Dased on these required Dows, the het leg inhetlon flow must be 191 spm plus 52 gpm or approximately 250 gpm at 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> post.LOCA at 75 psia to match decay heat and sp Cow E
through one nozzle. Additional Cow, however, is needed to initiate a reverse Dow to provide boron cliintion FTT it ennMent that s hot leg flow with a Mn pi excess above the decay heat and gap flow is adequate for core boron dilution with or without an operator-assisted RCS couldown Ibat is. a total hot leg idection flow of 300 urm is adeauste to provide boren dilution from 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> cost.SBLOCA and bevond. If this were a LBLOCA,197 gpm is needed for core boiloff makeup at 14.7 psia, and a maximum single gap flow of 27,25 lbirt s or 199 spm
/
(Estimated CR.3 gap at 14.7 psia with Tau - 212 F and Tav = 400 F at 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> post.LOCA RV cooldown in steam) is needed. In this LBLOCA case, the recommended 500 gpm flow still exceeds the 197 gpm plus 199 gpm or approximately 400 gpm needed for bolloff makeup and gap flow considerations. This example has only 100 gpm excess flow for boron dilution The excess will increase with time as the decay heat boiloff and gap size and flow decrease. At 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, the boiloffis 122 gpm and the gap f!:r is extmpolated to be less much ler,s than 100 spm. The excet,., hot leg Cow at this time will be greater than 250 gpm. For L3LOCA the excess ECCS can be smaller, since the boron concentration does not have to be reduced to cornpensate for possible solubility increases due to subsequent RCS depressurization after 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. Iherefore the recommended 500 nom is adequate for LBLOCA concentratien control as well.
With a minimum of 500 gptn of hot leg injection flow,600 gpm for HPI flow, that leaves roughly 1600 gpm of the 2700 gpm LPI pump flow for instrument uncertainty and LPI nozzle flow.
Historically.1000 spm per LPI nozzle has been a target value for 5.ecuring the HPi pumps When using the hot leg injection alignment, it is resonable to target 1000 gpm for the one flowing LPl line, which leaves 000 spm of real pump flow foi imtaument unceituinty or Dow Imbalance at 75 psia, Below 75 psia, the pump flow willincrease and additional flow may be available to the hot leg injection path, such that, once initiated, the flow may be adequate to suppress core boiling w;1 kr.a:.:.tc c Wistic dcery heat levels.
ln summary, FTI recommends that the hot leg injection alignment provide flow for one IFl pump, a minimum reverse flow of at least 500 gpm through the decay heat drop line for boron diluuon, and approximately 1000 gpm into one CFT nozzle. If possible, the hot leg injection flow should be increased from a minimum of 500 gpm to roughly 900 spm. This flow rate is capsble of both suppressing core boiling and removing the core boron concentration mechanbm when
. realistle decay heat contributions are considered.
I rQ7.oosfWo l Attachment a
Page (of 6
S
c.o,.
1
([@
If you have any questions regarding this material please contact John Klingenfus at (804) 832-3294.
Prepared by:
. A. Klingenfbs0 [
Reviewed by:
w
- f. C. Seals Very truly yours, Jahe+h's o
R. J. chontaker Project Manager B&W Owners Group Management E'
JAK/RJS/mcl k
Attachment.mi7-oots secoPage6 of 6
3 6
i TOTA. P.07
w,.
e......
!t a
t 5
. t +
e 4
4 3
I I
.t.
r r.
i
.9 e
e
- ;4 4.
9, i:.,,
t 4
t
+*i,i*,
e
- h 4
t,
- 8 GAA
- OF !' PRE 550RE T60'P JN ;4
,6
+
i i 1
./
DECRY, HERT i PUTriPI l U ITM ! '., 4-51 :I!'1 l
~
a r
REVEdSC. ! Fi.oO.'. l TRTR l FRotn [,...
(f' 3
ti i
- e t
, i i
tt, e.t-
./'
~. ; i IDP.tETTEk,KGSE rE Jr@ ! 1To !jT :.
- i i
- i>l' i
,!. + ' '., ' [4. i - i li '
'i i-zo -
1,l}.
.', ' ' ; ! ! C. ArWP6ELO,! D'RTCd I W' 'Adf97 i f. f j 111].. f.
24
+ >
e -
- I.I
.e
, t, ;,, +; :,1.. ; ;
,j:;i.;}iall.:;,;..}11 1}, i t..,
1,.,
.t t.
i
,r 4
<.3 j
1 14
'1
- ^
1 l J +, ;
il 4.
4J4 '
{ 4 f 4,14.L 1-._.. 4, J -. 4 i t y...-1 y,ri,i+4,'1{,,
+
a i
.t
. -. { 4,1-i W 4 4,
- t. i 4 41
- 1 i }+
i,4 1 '
4!
4 i
s
,. !,} 4. } L j p; i t i r. {, i...
t }, p: 4 i_ t {.+4.'4 4. 7.+:li g,.J
!.4 e,i
.,,i,i.;;}::
1
. 124t in a-214t.
1..,:
4 4 ;4 r...t.j'..t
,3 4.' : 41 1
pt, 4 4.p p.
4-
.r y:j+'r.t{4f.,
a.
p ie..
i
.!/,4
- ">1'ti!;[~p.ji}
i t., H,-i+Y+F:.
! O-
-t-H {7-p a i -
,)6 r c H -F 14 A ii F l, j ; rli F ;l;1 i
j
~; r gI';4-14d* *4it --
1
}n t t 7-4 itj * -
1
- i,' i
- 1' it t
' t c {11 t,t ti L
i,e i l : !,
t -r+.
t-t --
rt ;
t j, Fr,
f:-ti4-i l
1 4' i,
- i t!j
?,fT' 1'{'!. ; !';t ! * " ~ ~4 T
+r t**"
t
~~
+-
t -'
t--
7- -.Jt 12+t}tLT l-
+
-t-H i } t i,r t
t
- ,+
- ; t;.
r
+
4 i
+ 4 H r.. h[ 1 4 t +-i-h; l l;,r
-.c.
-t-
/-
t t
{r
+
i e t-t 4 14 t
-l;,!4
' 4 "i r t t
i tt
/
i 1
+
i.t.tt+- - ~t i
.aj!.t;,l.
F M
.tr' l
l.
ri i,, i, e t..
t-i r
e t 4. _ ~, t + 12,-
i i.
4
.i,,.
1; i-i,;
1 1
4
[.
I t
q. ; I j.., : i t i., 4._ut.. i, 4 i,!,
i 1 ' :'.;
Lia p..
' +it
,4 1
i,4 i
i
- i. ;
.;ii t ii
- i t
, ' i
,.: ;.. i.- -i....
.- n !.j
.1
.. i
.., 1'. 4 4.;q -; 1 L ; ; +, : ; >l, i n
. y.}
.1.,;1'
-,: 4 4
1
- i. i ;
t y;. wpp ;
T997-ooSW @W : ; :. 4,44.a ul-M>t lM '
!!Il
~
n i
i A; ttachme'nt-
.P,a,ge,pl f
b-li.
1;;>
9 si.
i
-1
!,.,.,i is y
e i
'-t i i
'!'j' til
.t
tt*.
l f ii ji,t'i li' r
4 4
1 t
!t !
,i,; '::
1
- 1 i
r* j t y+
iIi
- 'I,0 ; P F! { j. t l-t t +
i r
i, t ;
+
t it e+
1-f a 4 +,
'g ; '
,j,t i
+a a
+
j+
,, +,
,4 i
rl j
4.,.
4
-, {-j r-1-* e 1, i i
t-i j t, } j,, - i !'it; e--f;t-
+,
l l-i-1 i i -4 4 i
- i,*t
. p+
.,,4 t
4 a
,1 1 ' ' '
i I ;
t'
- i
.t; offf1 i,'-l
- gi,;.i.*.!
- - ', t i i, r; ' p t+
j '.,,
,1
- +
t 1
- ,t r !
1 r
^
t i
l'/05;.;ll!
l
',AI+
1-I A i 100 Too 300
- t o o 600
' A oO Joo [ i goo
,100[
s po.
t r *
- i[} r t
. t.
i
- . i
> ; Lt;
!J44: 'L'J
--~;~.t" C7 e,'i-f Iti i,i!,l'
} } l ;l l i,,
I'fi.
YH
- i1-
- i I 'l t,rF Fh 'lJ + +i. -+.Il 'j & "~
n,j.
-}
i c
Fr -
1 t
+,-
t
- it.
- ii.I
~- t.,1 i
J *4 e -+ - +-'~~Y f~
-l-+. J f i *
!!{l4
,n
'It'
'j l
4
,i+?
ti lt t
t s i
- 1 6 i
-d -4 t
ie itt t
-1
- i
- i ;, + i 3 e
.t
08/04/1997 17:13 3523634660 CFi. support pAGE. 0.3 oms dur-rmi 07/31/1997 09:28 3525634660 G 447 147 3944 Stel3ste 18: J4 Jehe evene fn4 e
mm
- hay, ETMBg9W $se6ig 5 poems secoweaosman asom MortonGrov,Lgangs ogA Meh700467 ico Ne f atomer.706 967 2457 August 13.1996 Mr. Phil Saltsman-imC-tm2J Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Nw:. lear Plant 15750 W. Power Line Street Crystal R1,ver, Florida 34428 6708
Subject:
Decay liest Rem:rval Pung Seal
Dear Phil,
This is in reply to your fax of August 13th and to confirm our teloptone conversatim of today regarding the affecc of the reverse flow on the egal we discussed that in nornal operation of the pung the low pressure is at the eye of the ispeller and the high precoure inat the pratare still will be at the eye of the inpeller and the high nressure will be at the tip of the inpeller however the pressure affference between the two points will be much smaller (app. 2PSIG). I assume, tha*, the pressure in the stuffing bf X Wi n be egaal to the low pressure.
Since you indicated that the neal 11ush pipira is connec:ed to tbs high pressure line of the punp I agree that the pressuredifferenthi of 2 P31 seal flush line pressurw will not af tect the furetien of theseal. Since the the prt:nido enough flov to receve the heat ger,sration between j
seal faces.
l essure is When we design a seal. there is always a spr ic praasuzs calculated into the design in addition to the in order to keep the seeling faces cloeod in the event oT no pressure difference. 'Ihis average spring pesure is 20 PSIG and tMt is' rnere than adequate in your sir.uat.co.
e, this will clear all unanswered questions regarding the I
in the re w rse flow situation.
s
~,,......
M 9~7 -O o 35 f(Ei/ O g.
(tachment 5
Page I
of 2-w s
o
PAGE 04 OPS SUPPORT PACf. 02 00/04/1997 17:13 3525634660 OPS SLPPCRT
- .et
<07/31/1997 09:28 3525634660 3 647 967 2946 ste ts. u 12:33 If voi taw further questic:w, please call tre at (H7)967 3728.
J f
St
- nly,
%jd
.r cr. Design EngiM er
('
m91-oots Rehoage of 2.
2 6
Attacn, :nent n-i
7 A Florida (v/ Powcr RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION c.,,... o..
NUCLEAR OPERATIONS ENGINEERING NTSA ext.1628 l
OFFICE MAC PHONE
- ( 3 JECT
Use of Crane 10"- 300 lb "AU" Series Glove Valve. Hi-Dron Linear Trim in reverse flow condition (DHV-110/11t for Boron Precipitation concern)
PARTICIPANTS: Trent Powers (FPC)
Gary Hillis (Crane Valve)
FILE:.__
DISCUSSION: I called Crane Valve (Gary Hillis) to inouire about the ability of the subject valves to operate in a reverse AP condition: Specifically. my concerns were if the AP characteristics of the valve would resemble the characteristics of the valve with flow in the forward direction. as whether the valve would be able to control with reverse flowrates in the 500 - 1000 anm ranae.
Gary Hillis called bac' later in the day and informed me that the AP profile would be similiar in both the forward and reverse direstions in this flow rance.
Gary also discussed that the valves would be capable of operatina for an extended period of time (weeks) under these
(
- onditions. Stronalv recommended was insoectina the vaives followino any such Dost accident operation. The only notential oDerationalimpact would he if the valve were takino ~70% of the total system pressure droo I told Gary Lh.at this was very unlikey due to the confiauration lineun that we would be in while in a reverse flow situation.
k.: SIGNATURE DATE Attachttient_fn9~l-0028 RWOPage i
of l 6
CC:
Participants & File
wenn '97..meP.'.SFRE wn. OFE ATICf1S FLCRIOA PCWER CCF2 PI2E 02
+-
~
FlorWa Pew r RECORD GF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION e.,,....
l
.g NUCLEAR OPERATIONS ENGINEERING _
NTRA artd628
'oj cmcc w
p c~s
SUBJECT:
Use of Cranc30". 300 lb 'AU' Sortes Glove Valve. Hi-Dron Linaaf Trim in reverse flow condition (DHV-110/11i for Boron P1winitatien concemi 3 TP A A '/ l G T D '7 7 OU "R GV 3 PARTICIPANT 3: Trent Powersi (F AC) lary Hilfis (Cfone VaNei __
FILE:
Ol3CU3510N: I calleLCrane Vahre (Gary HMs) to inauire about the ablatv__otthe subject valves to oc) tate in a_tuttu AP rorigittion. Scac!flealtv. my co_ncems were if the AP characterist!cs_of_the valve would.r_et_errble the characteristics gf the valve with tiew In the forward _q!Lq,qtice. as whether the valve would be ab!a_to_c_ontrol with reverse flowrstes in the LQQ.,_,1CLCLQ.gpm nca.
. GaN Hillia called back later in the day and informed me _that the_aP orefito would be simniar in both the fotward and memt.gtrections in this fic_w Lanne.
9 Q8N 8130 iscussed that the valves would_be_ capable cf cesrahnifor an ertended omried_of_tima (weeksi under_these -
conditions. StteneN reeemmeaded wu inceectinn_the va!vos falowine_any such nest accident cearndon. Thq.on!V.. _.
pctentiateserationalimeaet would be if the vetva were takino ~70% of the totalsystem crosser, dreo I told Garv that this was very unlikov due_to the conficuration linoue tant we would be In wNie in a reverse flew situation.
To 0L 4.c o N 7*u t C cw c c44 c J 9 n cs s u a c 2 2 c ?.* - I t -i n c Qui cc -r " Pac.c s u n t.
31 /3 r. t.m A c o u r '3 0*7, e r r *2c' i.v t e r %c s r.a c (PT I A) Trice da e r4 r,oo tvs i.t. ?ac tc e c a s ic u s r.c a vf 7a cth.c A4, SE.va n LT t,4-< e v r # <. Tre e w w e c u Wt vc u a <
E L o t'artxtco sa ncycc s c 3, ize c.;,< o >s. ' T*n o s 1.a v.x v e-e.s too m s a s o s e c r u c AT Con D a1* oM ( O N e Tr a.r. GvrNT-). Trac C. A i/ e TA 7 ( o Al /A E.h T ( D A) E O Cov.u n s a y ces %w n S tre cm T>,peac As v>cet A s Tu e. h e.vs,
AND IF &*J ob tn c c O r % e m C A v uT s i o $ un c ott:rt E.b 15 v riu s oc c Tro)J
- h. Ptac cac ar* o r Tuc Va u v t wouLa
- e. WCUA I R C h ' Pit to n. T c m a-r s T4,u. u.
0
.n
& # 123 L h t. t J 04 n.
- /-},4 t 4 5 I b ! d T F a t e e. U
$tN
- o,a Pa o.3 c c-r CNc.s accA. $W
/Acw.aur & Boimew T/2 'I!W
~
~
SIGNATURE
'DATE 7 7 f'?
mu-o.= o Page p Of g CC:
Participonts & File
- Attachment
.-- 6
ATTACHMENT C TO 3F0298-07 s
Ingersoll-Drcsser Pump Campany letter to FPC dated November 12, 1997 "811N-194 Decay ricat Pumps, Typical S/N - 1624920/21"
O O
IngM5 ell *Dree8W Pump Compesy Services Besiseas Unit 942 Memorial Pukway P!ultipsbwg.NJ 08865 Bus 908 859 7000 Fax 905 859 7988 D
November 12,1997 Kevin Campbell Florida Power Corp.
Crystal River Unit 3 15760 Power Line Street Crystal River, Florida 34428 Re:
8HN-194 Decay Heat Pumps Typical S/N - 1624920/21
Dear Kevin:
We at=Ingersoll Dresser Pump Company (IDP) have reviewed the subject pump with
- regard to running in reverse rotation. The reverse rotation being caused by reverse flow passing from discharge to suction, with the motor not energized.
This pump, as most all centrifugal pumps, will not have a pr,blem ruruing up to full speed in reverse. Therefore, you should not expect to see any damage on loss of service life when the pun'p is. subjected to this mode of operation.
Sincerely, A
~
<l s
Paul J. Kasztejna Supervising Design Engineer PJK:kg cc: M. Dozier Ingersoll-Rand Pacific Worthington Plouger Scienco Jeumont-Schneider Pumps
k l
ATTACHMENT D TO 3F0298-07 FPC CALCULATION M97-0098, Revision 6 Boror. Dilution by Hot Leg Injection (FTI Report 51-5000519-06)
___