ML20212C554
| ML20212C554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1997 |
| From: | Mcintyre B WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | Quay T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19313D026 | List: |
| References | |
| AW-97-1177, NUDOCS 9710300015 | |
| Download: ML20212C554 (27) | |
Text
.
p
(%
N t Westinghouse Energy Systems km355 Electric Corporation Pittstugh PennsyNania 152340355 AW-97-1177 -
October 24,1997 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
MR. T. R. QUAY APPLICATION FOR WITHHOLDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AP600 NOTRUMP VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION (RAI 440.721f)
Dear Mr. Quay:
The application for withholding is submitted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse")
pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations. It contains commercial strategic information proprietary to Westinghouse and customarily held in confidence.
The proprietary material for which withholding is being requested is identified in the proprietary
-version of the subject report. In conformance with 10CFR Section 2.790, Affidavit AW-97-Il77
-accompanies this application for withholding setting forth the basis on which the identified proprietary information may be withheld from public disclosure.
'Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the subject information which is proprietary to Westinghouse be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.
Correspondence with respect to this application for withholding or the accompanying afTidavit should reference AW-97_1177 and should be addressed to the undersigned.
Very truly yours, 5
Y
/
. Brian A. McIntyre, Manager Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing jml cc:
Kevin Bohrer
. NRC OWFN - MS 12E20 p
a=ck==o;PJ [m 9710300015 971024
. ~
4
- AW 97-Il77 AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
ss COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY:
'llefore me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Brian A. McIntyre, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is authorized to execute this Amdavit on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") and that the averments of fact set forth in this Amdavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief:
h Brian A. McIntyre, Ma, nager-Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing
- Sworn to and subscribed before me this
,Y day of
,1997
/'
Notary Public Notarial Seal Rose Mrrie Payne, Notary Public Monroevitte Boro. Allegheny County My Commission Expires Nov. 4,2000 Member, Pennsylvania Assostion of Nolanas us4. wpr
A W 971177
-j (1)
I am Manager, Advanced Plant Safety And Licensing, in the New Plant Projects Division, of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation and as such, I have been speel6cally delegated the g
function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing and rulemaking proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of the Westinghoase Energy Systems Business Unit.
(2)
I am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions cf 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations and in conjunction with the Westinghause application for withholding accompanying this Af0 davit.
(3)
I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilised by the Westinghouse Energy Systems Business Unit in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as conndential commercial or unancial information.
(4)
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining 4
whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld.
4 (i)
The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in con 6dence by Westinghouse.
(ii)
The information is of a type customarily held in coandence by Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the public, Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the types of informatica customarily held in conGdence by it and, in that connection, -
utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in conndence. The application of that system and the substance of that system constitutes Westinghouse policy and provides the ratiotal basis required.
Under that system, information is held in con 6dence if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the less of an existing or potential competitive advantage, as follows:
34%pf
i AW 97-1177 (a)
The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.) where prevention of its use by any of i-Westinghouse's competitors without license from Westinghouse constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies.
(b)
It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.), the applirtion of which data secures a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimir tion or improved markett.6ility.
(c)
Its use by a com,.itor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of qt slity, or licensing a similar product.
(d)
It reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers.
(e)
It reveals aspects of past, present, or future Westinghouse or customer funded-development plans and programs of potential commercial value to Westinghouse.
(f)
It contains patentable ideas, for which patent protection may be desirable.
There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse system which include the following:
(a)
The use of such information by Westinghouse gives Westinghouse a competitive advantage over its competitors. It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position.
(b)
It is information which is marketable in many ways. The extent to which such information is available to competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to sell products and services involving the use of the information.
34Wa vrpf
l AW.971177 l
l f
(c)
Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a competitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditure of resources at our expense.
(d)
Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular competitive advantage is potentially as valuable as the total competitive advantage. If competitors acquire components of proprietary infonnation, any one component may be the key to the entire puzzle, thereby depriving Westinghouse of a competitive advantage.
(e)
Unrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and thereby give a market advantage to the competition of those countries.
(f)
The Westinghouse capacity to invest corporate assets in research and development depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage.
(iii)
The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10CFR Section 2.790, it is to be received in contidence by the Commission.
(iv)
The information sought to be protected is not available in public sources or available information has not been previously employed in the same original manner or method to the best of our knowledge and belief.
(v)
Enclosed is Letter DCP/NRCI106 (NSD-NRC-97-5400), October 24,1997, being transmitted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (W) letter and Application for Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure, Brian A. McIntyre @,
to Mr. T. R. Quay, Office of NRR. The proprietary information as submitted for use by Westinghouse Electric Corporation is in response to questions concerning the AP600 plant and the associated design certification application and is expected to be applicable in other licensee submittals in response to certain NRC requirements for 34144 mpf
AW-97-Il77 l
justification oflicensing advanced nuclear power plant designs.
This information is part of that which will enable Westmghouse to:
(a)
Demonstrate the design and safety of the AP600 Passive Safety Systems.
(b)
Establish applicable verification testing methods.
(c)
Design Advanced Nuclear Power Plants that meet N6'C requirements.
(d)
Establish technical and licensing approaches for the AP500 that will ultimately result in a certified design.
(e)
Assist customers in obtaining NRC approval for future plants.
Further this inforn.ation has substantial :ommercial salue as follows:
(a)
Westinghouse plans to sell the use of similar information to its customers for purposes of meeting NRC requirements for advanced plant licenses.
P (b)
Westinghouse can seli support r.nd defense of the technology to its customers in the licensing process.
Public disclosure of this proprietary information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse because it would enhance the ability of competitors to provide similar advanced nuclear power desig,ns and licensing defense services for commercial power reactors without commensurate expenses. Also, public disclosure of the information would enable others to use the information to moet NRC requirements for licensing documentation without purchasing the right to use the information.
ma.g
AW-97-1177 The development of the technology described in part by the information is the result of applying the results of many years of experience in an intensive Westinghouse effort and the expenditure of r. considerable sum of money, in order for competitors of Westinghouse to duplicate this information, similar technical programs would have to be perfonned and a significant manpower effort, having the requisite talent and experience, would have to be expended for developing analytical methods and receiving NRC approval for those methods.
Further the deponent sayeth not.
e 4
h 3454a wpf
4 a
ENCLOSURE 2 TO DCP/NRC1106 RAI 440.721(0 NON-PROPRIETARY 9
N SM W
of NBC Rt00tST F08 A80meNE INF9tIRATitu p
Question 440.721(f)
Provide more detaile so NOTRUMP's misprediction of pressurizer drainage in the OSU tests.
Thoroughly expiam the significance of this deficiency in the code, such as non-conservatively predicting IRWST flow, and how it will be treated in performing AP600 calculations.
Response
The response to RAI 440.721(c) described the pressurizer refilling phase. Near the end of the depressurization, the pressurizer begins to drain. The draining does not become significant until ADS-4 opens, and even then the drainirq process is relativtly slow. It will be shown in the response to RAI.440.721(g) that OSU is more correctly scaled for this period than SPES, so OSU will be examined in detail.
Review of test results:
Examination of the collapsed liquid level (Figures 8.3.x-S a. Nerence 440.721(f)-1) shows that the drain rate for most of the smaller breaks (2 inch cold leg and 0.5 inch cold leg) ranges from about
[
]" ft/s. This drain rate is much slower than draining of the pressurizer limited only by the surge line n:sistance. It is concluded that the drain rate is being limited by vapor How into the pressurizer. This is examined in further detail below.
The measured vapor flow out ADS l-3 is [
]" during this time, but the analysis below indicates that this is due to the inability of the measurement system to measure low vapor mass flows which l
could still resuit in high volumetric flows.
As shown in Figure 440.721(f)-1, the core begins to generate vapor at approximately [
]" seconds (based on an energy balance calculation). The two major escape paths for this vapor are ADS l 3 and the two ADS-4 lines. As a first approximation, the vapor generated in the core can be assumed to split up amcag these paths according to the flow area available. For OSU, the total flow area through the valves in ADS 13, ADS-4 on the hot leg connected to the pressurizer (hot leg 2), and on hot leg i are[
]" square feet respectively. The vapor flows through each path are then:
Wm=[
]" W.
W,a=[
]" W.
W4a = [
]" W.
The total flow into hot leg 2 is:
a litt ret #EST F98 Attlil#NAL INF94tl4T10N
..m a
?
!i WHt.2=[
]" W,.
Dividing the mass Dows estimated above by vapor density and the flow path areas yields vapor volumetne flux. Figure 440.721(1)-2 shows the vapor volumetric flux in the surge line and into hot leg 2 (the flow fractions used to obtain these plots were slightly different than those listed above; Wi23=l
}"W =, W 2=[
]"W,,, and W =[
]"W, ; howeser, these differences do not e
y significantly affect the results). When ADS-4 opens, the surge line vapor flow drops from about
[
]" ft/s to [
]" ft/s, initiating the drop in pressurizer level shown in Figure 440.721(0 3 at this time. However, after ADS t opens, the total vapor generation rate increases and the vapor density decreases due to decreasing pressure, so the surge line vapor velocity remains relatively high, slowing the pressurizer drain rate. Figure 440.721(0 3 compares the pressurizer level with the estimated vapor flux. It can be seen that the level tracks well with the vapor flow. Figure 440.721(0-4 shows the volumetric flux through the ADS-4 valves. He estimated vapor velocities are relatively high, and could be sufficient to cause some liquid entrainment from the hot leg.
De response to RAl.440.721(c), indicated that a second level swell occurred when the core fluid began to boil at about [
]" seconds. The estimated vapor flux through the surge line into the l
pressurizer after the core begins to boil can be used in the Yeh correlation (Equation 2.3-1, Reference l
440.721(0-1) to calculate the mixture void fraction tr,in the two phase mixture in the pressurizer.
o Dividing the collapsed level by (1-tr,) gives the mixture level as plotted in Figure 440.721(0-5. It o
l can be seen that during phase 11([
]" seconds), the mixture level is calculated to be above the top of the pressurizer, providing additional evidence that a second level swell occurred.
Estimation of the drain rate limited by flooding To confirm that the drain rate is limited by flooding, the following calculations were performed:
The pressurizer drain rate can be expressed as:
N un,y*
dt dZun"Au dt Arn where:
hi,.,,2 pressuriner liquid mass Z,z pi Ap2
=
=
if A az average pressurizer crossectional area
=
r 448.721m -2 W Westinghouse I.
m
9 1188 REtttST fet AtemtllAL liifttIIATlu
!!;+mmii.";!
3::
collapsed liquid level Z raz e
t W
=
i,3t.
liquid flow rate out of the surge line Asto,jist
=
jost = liquid volumetric flux in surge line (negative downwards)
Assume that the liquid flow rate in the surge line is controlled by the flooding limit. Assume a flooding limit of the form, utilizing Kutatladze scaling (see page 1.7-9 of Reference 440,721(01):
k,* * + m(-k,* *#) = C
.6
- g. gpj nM x 2
P, k*= bb g
$ p, K Assume that m=0.7 and C=1.5 (see Equation 1 ~7 33 in Reference 440.721(0-1). If j, is known, j, can be determined by:
CK 'A -),',A '
t IJL"~
E,gp y
l m
A
's
'Ihe vapoi tiow from the core can be assumed to split up according to the flow areas available and the flow path resistances. For the OSU test facility, these ratios are:
Win = [
]" W,,
W,=[
]" W,,
W Westinghotte
~
3 Ntt M40EST 708 A80fTlenu lufttMATitu y
w where W. is the total flow through both ADS 4 lines (the ratios are slightly different from the previous values because the line resistances have been taken into account). Herefore, the vapor flux through the surge line is:
[.
] W, lvjL" P/SL During the period from [
]" seconds, the vapor generation rate in the core is about
[
]" lb/s and the pressure is about [
}" psia in test SB18. Using these values in the above equations and calculating the rate of change of liquid level results in a value of [
}" ft/s, reasonably close to the observed value of [
]" ft/s. This confirms ti.;t the drain rate in controlled by flooding and by the fraction of vapor generated in the core which flows through ADS l-
- 3. This process will be examined further in the response to RAl.440,721(g), to determiae whether the drain rate in OSU is appropriate for AP600.
He effect of a partially filled pressurizer can be seen in Figure 440.721(f) 6. His figure compares the measured downcomer pressure with the incremental pressure above atmospheric which would be obtained by converting the pressurizer level to hydrostatic head. A significant portion of the pressure in the downcomer is the result of this hydrostatic head. Therefore, liquid held up in the pressurizer increases the downcomer pressure which in turn will delay and reduce the IRWST flow.
NOTRUMP results:
The OSU prediction all show that s.hile the refill rate in OSU is predicted well in NOTRUMP, the overall drain rate is much faster, ne predictions are characterized by a sudden drop in the water level shortly after the ADS-4 valves open. Since the evaluation of the NOTRUMP drift flux model in Section 1.7 of Reference 440.721(f)-1 indicated that it would underestimate the liquid downflow for a given vapor upflow, it is likely that the reason for the NOTRUMP misprediction is due to an underprediction of the vapor flow through the ADS 13 while ADS 4 is open. The NOTRUMP analysis described below was performed to c)nfirm that this was the case.
Notrumo Simulations In Sucoort Of RAI.4 40.721(f)
Several NOTRUMP simulations were p.:rformed, with th - OSU model, to attempt to improve the pressurizer drain response observed fellowing ADS Stage 4 actuation. The 2 inch cold leg break simulation (Te:t SB18) was utilized as the basis for this effort. Modifications performed to the base i
model, developed in Reference 440.721(f)-1, included the following:
I 448.7210 4 T Westli" house v
O litt BE4085T F06 A38til011E lilfttMATitti Inclusion of a caulti-node pressurizer (3 nodes) to better.nodel the pressurizer void fraction distribution.
Inclusion cf multi-node CMT model as developed in respcnse to Reference 440.721(0-1, Appendix A, " Response to RAI 440.339".
7he following cases were performed during this effort:
1.
BacFne Case - 20 Node CMT,3 Node Pressurizer Model Rerun Of Final Validation Report (FUR) Case (Reference 440.721(0-1 Section 8.3.1).
2.
" n.cgenous Hot Leg - Modified Case 1 For Homogenous Hot Legs To improve ADS 13 Performance.
3A. Homqenous Hot Leg - Modified Case 2 ADS Stage 1-3 Flow Links Downstream End Elevations Raised In IRWST Tank.
3B. Horragenous hot Leg - Modified Case 2 To Change Downstream End Of ADS l 3 Links To Discharge To A Constant Pressure Boundary Node.
Case 1 Results:
No significant changes in transient results were predicted by this simulation. This was expected since l
the OSU facility pressurizer is well scaled and the facility itself is operated at relatively low I
temperature and pressure. The observed differences are a result of the inclusion of the multi node CMT model, which were also observed in performing runs in support of RAIA40.339 (Included in Reference 440.721(0-1).
The use of the multi-node CMT model results in a delay in the onset of increted CMT injection temperature observed in the base Final V,didation Report (FVR) simulations. The multi-node CMT model results in higher sub-cooling at the core inlet which delays the onset of core re-saturation and the subsequent pressure hang which was observed in the Base FVR results. Selected comparison figures, between the Base FVR case SB18 simulation results and the Case I results, can be found in Figures 440.721(0-7 and 440.721(0 8 respectively.
Case 2 Results:
The next case considered was an attempt to alter the ADS How distribution by homogenizing the hot legs (Fluid Nodes 10 and 20 of Figure 8.2 2 of Reference 440.721(0-1). By doing so, the liquid content of the flow reaching the ADS-4 valves would be increased, thereby reducing the vapor flow through ADS-4 and forcing additional vapor flow through the ADS 13 valves.
W Westinghouse J
l NBC REGGEST F98 Attifl0NAL INF9tIRATl94 g: y p:
+
As expected, the change to homogenous hot legs resulted in a change in the predicted pressurizer mixture level and IRWST injection flow rates following ADS Stage 4 actuation. The predicted pressurizer mixture level (Figure 440.721(0-9) remains substantially higher than the base case (Case 1) until apprc.ximately 1750 seconds, while minimally affecting CMT drain behavior. This change results in an increase in the predicted downcomer pressure, Figure 440.721(0-10, and subsequently delays IRWST injection now (Figure 440.721(0-11). The predicted drop in pressurizer level at approximately 1800 seconds was still too rapid, relative to the test data, and additiona: simulat ons were attempted to i
improve this behavior.
Case 3A Results:
The purpose of this run was to further alter the ADS l-3 How distribution by reloeming the ADS Stage 13 downstream connection point in the Upper IRWST tank node (Fluid Node 67 of Figure 8.2 2 of Reference 440.721(f)-1). This change would reduce the static pressure on the downstream end of the ADS Stage 13 fhw links which would increase the duration of the ADS Stage 1-3 Dow. By increasing the duration of ADS Stage 13 Dow, the pressurizer mixture level would remain at a higher level due to con'inued CCFL conditions in the pressurizer surge line. With the added static head in the pressurizer, the IRWST flow would be affected due to increased downcomer pressure.
While the pressurizer mixture level indeed increased between 1000 and 1500 seconds, the IRWST injection flow rate actually increased slightly due to a decrease in the predicted system and downcomer pressures which occurred as a result of the altered ADS Stage 1-3 flow. Figures 440.7EO-12 through RAI.440.721(0-15 provide selected comparisons between the Case 2 and Case 3A results.
Case 3B Results.
This case represents an alternate approach to that perforr.d in Case 3A. Namely, as opposed to moving the ADS Stage 13 flow link connection points within the IRWST fluid node, the ADS links were connected directly to a boundary node at constant pressme. This provides for an alternate representation of the ADS Stage 1-3 valves connection point to the ADS Stage 1-3 separater in the OSU test facility.
The predicted response for mis case was very similar to Case 3A. However, Case 3B was able to execute for an extended period of time. Note that the predicted pressurizer level was observed to remain on span for the duration of the transient simulation and thus affect the downcomer pressure.
However, since the system pressure is also affected by the altered boundary condition, the IRWST injection rate, compared to the unmodified Case 2 results, exhibits a slight increase in now as a result.
S 444.721(D 4 3 Westirighouse
1888 REGOEST 798 ASSITittlAllilF9tMAT10N iib e.:
in Figures 440.721(016 through RAI.440.721(f)-18 provide selected comparisons between the Case 2 and Case 3B results.
==
Conclusions:==
The results obtained tend to support the argument that the slower draining of the pressunzer level in the OSU test simulations is a result of a difference in the predicted ADS f1';w distribution from the test valt.e. The case provided, while not providing an exact duplication cf the tests, indicate that an increase in pressurizer level will indeed inhibit or reduce the predicted IRWST injection flow. This information will be used to support the IRWST level penalty to be described in the response to RAl.440.21(g).
References.
440.721(f)-1 "NOTRUMP Final Validation Report for AP600", WCAP 14807, Revision 2,1997 440.721(0-2 "AP600 Low-Pressure Integral Systems Test At OSU: Test Analysis Report", WCAP.
14292, September 1995 SSAR Revision: NONE T W85tlngh01:S8
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION M
4 OSU 2 INCH COLD LEG BREAK CORE VAPOR GENERATION RATE CALCULATED RY ENERGY BALANCE.
h, b, c 4
1 l
i CORE COMPLETELY SUSCOOLED FROM 400 TO 700 SECONDS; VAPOR GENERATION SUPPRESSED.
MEASURED ADSi-3 VAPOR FLOW DUE TO FLASHING OF WARM LIQUID LAYER ABOVE SUSCOOLED LAYER.
ADS 1-3 MEASUREMENT NOT PICKING UP LOWER VAPOR FLOW AFTER 4
700 SECONDS.
Figure 440.721(f)-1 Meuured ADSI 3 vapor flow compared with calculated core steam generation rate 1
440.721(f) -8 5W i
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 4
OSU 2 INCH COLD LEO BREAK
, ASSUME CORE GENERATED VAPOR FLOWS THROUGH ADS VALVE! ACCORDING TO AREA RATIO.
N, b, C 4
i 4
a
~
VAPOR VELOCITIES APPEAR SUFFICIENT TO LIMIT LIQUID DRAINING IN i
SURGE LINE.
i Figure 440.721(f)-2 Estimated vapor flux through surge line and hot leg 440.721(f)-9 i
A NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION R
i OSU 2 INCH COLD LEG BREAK PRESSURIZER COLLAPSED LEVEL AND CALCULATED SURGE LINE VAPOR FLOW.
b, b, c
^
i t
4 CHANGES IN CALCULATED VAPOR FLOW THROUGH SURGiii Lil4E TRACK WELL WITH PRESSURtZER WATER LEVEL Figure 440.721(f) 3 Pstimated vapor flux through surge line compared with pressurizer water level 440.721(P, -10
e NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I
O*. ) 2 INCH COLD LEO BREAK CALCULATED VAPOR FLOW THROUGH ADS 4.
i
" 2r, l), C.
i 4
f I
i VAPOR VELOCITY THROUGH ADS 4 APPEARS SUFFICIENT TO ENTRAIN LIQUID FROM STRATIFIED LAYER.
2 Figure 440.721(f)-4 Estimated vapor flux through ADS 4 valves gg 440.721(f)-11
i NRC REQUEST FOR ADOmONAL INFORMATION R
OSU 2 INCH COLD LEG BREAK USING YEH VolD FRACTION CORRELATION AND CALCULATED VAPOR FLOW, CALCULATE PRESSURIZER MIXTURE Voto FRACTION AND MIXTURE LEVEL
" b, b, C.
4 i
t
~
MIXTURE LEVEL AT TOP OF PRESSURIZER ColNCIDES WELL WITH SECOND OUTSURGE.
WHEN MIXTURE LEVEL DROPS BELOW PRESSURIZER AT 1000 SECONDS, UQUID OUTSURGE STOPS.
4 4
i Figure 440.721(f)-5 Estimated mixture level in pressurizer
~
440.721(f) -12 W Westinghouse d
l
r NRO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WRi OSU 2 INCH COLD LEO BREAX MEASURED DOWNCOMER PRES 8URE AND CALCULATED PRESSURE ABOVE ATMOSPHERIC DUE TO WATER LEVEL IN PRESSURIZER.
bo b o G I
l
~
LIQUID HOLD UP IN PRESSURIZER INCREASES DOWNCOMER PRESSURE AND REDUCES IRWST FLOW.
Figure 440.721(f) 6. Effect of pressurizer level on downcomer pressure c
440.721(f) 13
--a a
r Figure 440.721(f).7 Case 1. Pressurker Mixture Level Comparison OSU Sb18.
2 Inch Cold leg Break Prossurizer WIxture Lsvel osv rva....
---.osvv.iu.........
, 20 y
.~ g g
E llDk l
i gg it e
5
- klt, g
.5,,4 l
lO-I F"'EL g.
E l' W e
][
3 i
m i
a I ThnP I
W SUD 1000 18'00 2000 2500 Time (s)
Figure 440.721(f) 8 Case 1,IRWST 2 Injection Flow Comparison OSU Sb18.
2 Inch Cold Leg Break IRWST-2 Flow osu tva u..i
---.osuu.ii-=...u..i m 3.5 E
I 3
3 gl l
i c
i l I
lii 5
!!! l L
hl s,
i jll14W 1M I
5 y am '
- .i 45 l
E m.,3 l
o luo 1000 15'00 2000 2500 Time (8)
/tmp.mnt/home/gagnona/wp/ docs /AP600/RAls/440.72 i f. doc Octoter 16,1997 4:37 pm 4
r--r--
r Figure 440.721(0 9 Case 2. Pressurizer Mixture Level Comparison OSU Sb18. 2 inch cold Log Break Prosourizer Wixture LeveI osu. o.=........ u,.iiei.
a.i t.,
- - - o s u v. i n.................... a.
6.,
30 n
[ gg SL tl EG[
k
~
I S
i i
I!WO I
W
$UD 1000 1 $'0 0 2000 2500 Time (s)
Figure 440.721(010 Case 2, Downcomer Pressurt Comparison OSU Sb18. 2 Inch Cold Leg Break Downcomer Pressure e,....
<,.i.)
osu v.ni a...
...,. Sir.o n..
w.i t.,
- - -. o s u v. i u. a......... w.......... a.i 6.,
400 30 7
- Il 7
- 300
'4
- t o ';
t
- 24
,200 22,
i
- 20 $
E100 N
tl E E
'" 5 0
s00 2000 2500 o
600 1600 1
Time (3)
/tmp.mnt/homelgagnona/wp/ docs /AP60&RAls/440 72 if. doc October 16, 1997 4:37 pm
r F
Figure 440.721(011 Case 2. IRWST 1 Injection Flow Comparison OSU Sb18.
2 inch Col.d Leg Break IRWST-1 Flow osu v.iii.=...
u...
si,.iiei.. u.i t.:
- - -. o s v u. i i i - =... u.... u......... u.i t.,
m15 is A
i M
3' w
gg E.
m,,g IA 5110 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (s)
Figure 440.721(012 Case 3A, Pressurher Mixture Level Comparison OSU Sb18, 2 Inch Cold Leg Break Prosourizer Mixture Level osu u.iu.a... u.e.i. cesi.
w...
ut, e...
---.osuv.iii-=...u....
crii, w...
at, u...
aos i.:
, 20
[,,
'y' " li a ms m,.-
si t
(
h i
,te, a,,
{\\
o l
5 0
g i4' 3
I i) 5l40 i:Go 1500 2000 7lme (s) 4
/tmp.mnt/home/gagnona/wpdocs/AP600/RAls/440.721f. doc October 16,1997 4:37 pm
r r
Figure 440.721(013 Case 3A.1RWST 1 Injection Flow Comparison OSU Sb18.
2 inch Cold Leg Brook IRWST-1 Flow osu v.ni-v...
...i. cen.
w...
at. s...
- - - o s u v. n i - =....... i. c, i i. a... a t..... aos i-s 2
n E
1
_, i. s
/,,
I I
o 1
- 5...
et i
0
)
H 690 1000 1500 2000 l
Time (s)
Figure 440.721(014 Case 3A, Pressurher Pressure Comparison OSU S818 2 INCH COLD LEO BREAK (REWOVED PRHR Pressure (pele)
PFN 172 0
0 PR[$$URl2[R PRES $UR
PFN 172 0
0 PRES $URIZ(R PRIS$UR Pressere (psie)
PFN 172 0
0 PRES $URIZ(R PRC$$UR PFN 172 0
0 PREssVRIZER PRE 55UR
,400 30 j
N m
- 2 a.!
0 "a 300
[
26 "a f
24 "
200
~,
22
,)
' 20 $
" 100
~
18 "
[
-,- I
-16 0 !" '
14 A 0
500 1000 1500 2000 Ilme (S)
/tmp.mnt/home/gagnondwp/ docs /AP600/RAls/440.72if. doc October 16.1997 4:37 pm
f f
Figure 440.721(015 Case 3A, Downcomer Pressure Comparison OSU Sb18. 2 inch Cold leg Brook Downcomer Preasure 0,......
(.i.)
osu v.iti-=.e. u.e.i s...
- - -. o s u v. i i i-=.e.
u.e.. c e s i.
a...
- 6
. crit.
a...
at.
v...
aos i.:
400 30 7
6
- 28 7
- 300 7
2 ';;
o.
Tp 24
- 200
- '~
\\
U i
}
-20 :s
- s
[100
~
-I
~& E '
it E
\\
i w
(
.gg w l
c.
a.
0 14 9
$40 1000 1800 2000 Time (s)
Figure 440.721(016 Case 3B, Pressurizer Mixture Level Comparison OSU Sb18. 2 Inch Cold Leg Brook Pressurizer Wlxture Level osu v.iii-=.e. u.e.i. c,it. w...
at.
s...
- - -. o s u v. i i i-=. e. v.s. i. c e s i.
a...
a t, sa. u.a.
to n
~
'IN E r ** 's gg gg i
l i
ri l
> 14 i
4
'}
" 12
- ', t iU %
w to z
n t
M,,,akA.'A
- = 8 r
,i J.11 Y r'T 9
590 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (s)
/tmp mnt/home/gagnona/wp/ docs /AP6004tAls/440.721f. doc October 16.1997 4:37 pm
a i
Figure 440.721(f).17 Case 3B,IRWST.1 Flow Rate Comparison OSU Sb18. 2 inch Cold Leg Brook IRWST-1 Flow Osu v.io =....... e,n.
w...
et. s...
- - -. o s u v. i u - =... u.... e, u. w... at. e.
2.s E2
~
=18
~
y 1
~
.s
~
il.
=
U 5VO 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (s) 1 l
Figure 440.721(f).18 Case 3B, Downcomer Pressure Comparison OSU Sb18. 2 inch Cold Log Break Downcomer Prossure e.......
(,.i.)
osu u.ni.......i. c,ii.
w...
at. s...
- - -. os v u. i u a... u.. i. e, i i.
w...
u t, e..
I 400 30 b
-~.
m a
-to o a 300 25 a s
\\
}
s
-24 *
,200 22,
\\
w w
~
a_. 100 il S w
w\\ '
- W?. t s "w 0
i.
U lue 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (3)
Amp.mnt/home/gagnona/wp/ docs /AP6061(Als/440.72if doc October 16.1997 4:37 pm j
O