Text

Supplement Regarding Request to Withhold Information Related to License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 3.7.3, Ultimate Heat Sink
	ML20296A456
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	10/22/2020
From:	Demetrius Murray; Exelon Generation Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20296A616	List: ML20296A465; RS-20-135, Supplement Regarding Request to Withhold Information Related to License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 3.7.3, Ultimate Heat Sink;
References
	RS-20-135
	Download: ML20296A456 (105)
	v • d • e

4300 Winfield Road Exelon Generation Warrenville, IL 60555 630 657 2000 Office RS-20-135 10 CFR 50.90 October 22, 2020 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington , D.C. 20555-0001 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18 NRG Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374

Subject:

Supplement Regarding Request to Withhold Information Related to License Amendment Request to Revise LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 3.7.3, "Ultimate Heat Sink"

References:

1) Letter from D. Murray (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Request for a License Amendment to LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 3.7.3, 'Ultimate Heat Sink,"' dated July 17, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20204A775)

2) Letter from B. K. Vaidya (U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to B. C.

Hanson (Exelon Generation Company, LLC), "LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 - Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Regarding Request for a License Amendment to Technical Specification 3.7.3, 'Ultimate Heat Sink' (EPID L-2020-LLA-0165)," dated August 27, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20239A726)

3) Letter from D. Murray (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Supplement to the Request for a License Amendment to LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 3.7.3, 'Ultimate Heat Sink,"' dated September 11, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20259A454)

In Reference 1, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGG) submitted a License Amendment Request (LAR) for LaSalle County Station , Units 1 and 2 proposing changes to Technical Specifications (TS) 3.7.3, "Ultimate Heat Sink," to expand the TS temperature limit of the cooling water supplied to the plant from the ultimate heat sink (UHS) to vary with the diurnal cycle by changing the average sediment level limit in the UHS to 6 inches.

In Reference 2, the NRG requested additional information necessary to complete its acceptance review of the referenced application. In Reference 3, EGG supplemented Reference 1 with information related to LaSalle County Station (LSCS) Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8 and EGG request to withhold information from public disclosure.

After discussions with the NRG, EGG is withdrawing Attachment 4 of Reference 3 and its request to withhold information from public disclosure provided in Attachment 2 of Reference 3

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 22, 2020 Page 2 related to LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8 in their entirety. Information provided in Reference 3 related to LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8 is publicly available under ADAMS Accession No. ML151138115. of this letter provides information related to LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8 and supersedes the information provided in Attachment 4 of Reference 3.

EGC has reviewed the information supporting the finding of no significant hazards consideration and the environmental consideration that were previously provided to the NRC in Attachment 1 of Reference 1 letter. The additional information provided in this submittal does not affect the conclusion that the proposed license amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration. This additional information also does not affect the conclusion that there is no need for an environmental assessment to be prepared in support of the proposed amendment.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 , "Notice for public comment; State consultation," paragraph (b), a copy of this letter and its attachment are being provided to the designated State of Illinois official.

There are no regulatory commitments contained within this letter. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Jason Taken at (630) 806-9804 .

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 22nd day of October 2020.

Respectfully, Dwi Murray Sr. Manager - Licensing Exelon Generation Company, LLC

Attachment:

1. Applicable Sections of Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, LaSalle County Station Ultimate Heat Sink Analysis cc: Illinois Emergency Management Agency- Division of Nuclear Safety NRC Regional Administrator - Region Ill NRC Senior Resident Inspector - LaSalle County Station

ATTACHMENT 1 Applicable Sections of Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, LaSalle County Station Ultimate Heat Sink Analysis

CC-AA-309-1001 Revision 8 ATTACHMENT 1 Design Analysis Cover Sheet p age 1 0 f 1 Design Analysis I Last Page No.' Attachment P, Page P58 Analysis No.: ' L-002457 Revision: 2 8 Major [8J MinorO

Title:

' LaSalle County Station Ultimate Heat Sink Analysis EC/ECR No.: ' 389270 Revision:* 0 Station(s): ' LaSalle County Station 1 , L Component(s): "

Unit No.:' 1, 2 ~\\\\( l"'"

Discipline:

MEDC Descrip. Code/Keyword: " M03 Safety/QA Class: 11 Safety-Related System Code: 12 zz Structure: " N/A CONTROLLED DOCUMENT REFERENCES "

Document No.: From/To Doc.ument No.: From/To L-001581 From L-002456 From L-001584 From L-001355 To L-002453 From /To Is this Design Analysis Safeguards Information? ** YesO No [8J If yes, see SY-AA-101-106 Does this Design Analysis contain Unverified Assumptions?" YesO No [8J If yes, ATl/AR#:

This Design Analysis SUPERCEDES: " N/A in its entirety.

Description of Revision (list changed pages when all pages of original analysis were not changed): "

Revision 8 adds evaluation of the UHS transient analyses with an allowable plant intake temperature of 1O?°F at a power level of 3559 MW1* This calculation considers weather selection methodology from Rev. 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.27 and a more realistic heat load rejected to the UHS.

Pages Added: J33-40, N19-20,01-042, P1-P58 Pages Revised: 1-10, 13-35, 16, J18, N1-N2, N4-N8, N11-N12, N16-N18 ~ ,

Pages Removed: None ~\\?~o o.~~\':>~ \.<> ~Vos,..;.()){\~ ~1> / ~ )

Main Body (62 total pages)+ Att. A (22) + Att. 8 (358) + Att. C (16) +Alt. D (12) + Att. E (57) + Att. F (31) + Att.

G (72) + Att. H (344) + Att. I (22) + Att. J (40) + Att. K (6) + Att. L (58) +Alt. M (17) + Att. N (20) +Alt. 0 (42) +

Att. P (58) = 1,237 total pages Preparer: ao Daniel W. Nevill (S&L)

J2"~4J iJ. ~d! lo /rlz.011 Print Name Date Method of Review: 21 Detailed Review IZI Alternate Ca~ns (attached) [ Testing D Reviewer: 22 Paul J. Szymiczek (S&L)

Pnnt Name I 1~ ~ _) ~ IO/\/J01';)

Date

'-(,Name Review Notes: 23 Independent review IZI Peer review D (For External Analyses Only)

External Approver:

Exelon Reviewer: "

2

Pawel Kut (S&L)

~"b~~s Print Name fM,,/u~-

9-:t,. e SignName

/O-nt-2.,o/?

Date 10/7-/,-;

Print Name - (/ v SignNarmo Date Independent 3'd Party Review Reqd?" YesO No [81

\

Exelon Approver: 2 D.~fll s:. dlttJl'r° Mt:..1 .... *-t io/z/13 Print Name If Sion Name Date

CC*AA-103-1003 Revision 9 I

I Page 7 of 11 ATTACHMENT 2 Owner's Acceptance Review Checklist for External Design Analyses Page 1a Design Analysis No.: L-002457 - - - - - - - - - - Rev:1! _ _

No Question Instructions and Guidance Ye, I No I NIA

~ u u 1 Do assumptions have All Assumptions should be stated in clear terms with enough sufficient documented justification to confirm that the assumption is conservative.

rationale?

For example, 1) the exact value of a particular parameter may not be known or that parameter may be known to vary over the range of conditions covered by the Calculation . It is appropriate to represent or bound the parameter with an assumed value. 2) The predicted performance of a specific piece of equipment in lieu of actual test data . It is appropriate to use the documented opinion/position of a recognized expert on that equipment to represent predicted equipment performance.

Consideration should also be given as to any qualification testing that may be needed to validate the Assumptions. Ask yourself, would you provide more justification if you were performing this analysis? If yes, the rationale is likely incomplete. /

Are assumptions Ensure the documentation for source and rationale for the

~ D D

( 2 compatible with the way the plant is assumption supports the way the plant is currently or will be operated post change and they are not in conflict with any operated and with the design parameters. If the Analysis purpose is to establish a licensing basis? new licensing basis, this question can be answered yes, if the assumption suooorts that new basis.

3 Do all unverified If there are unverified assumptions without a tracking u u }6 assumptions have a mechanism indicated, then create the tracking item either tracking and closure through an ATI or a work order attached to the implementing mechanism in place? WO. Due dates for these actions need to support verification prior to the analysis becoming operational or the resultant plant chanqe beinq op authorized. I 4 Do the design inputs have sufficient The origin of the input, or the source should be identified and be readily retrievable within Exelon's documentation system.

)Ll D D rationale? If not, then the source should be attached to the analysis. Ask yourself, would you provide more justification if you were performing this analysis? If yes, the rationale is likely incomplete.

5 Are design inputs The expectation is that an Exelon Engineer should be able to ~ u u correct and reasonable clearly understand which input parameters are critical to the with critical parameters outcome of the analysis. That is, what is the impact of a identified , if change in the parameter to the results of the analysis? If the aooropriate? impact is larqe, then that parameter is critical. ,,

6 Are design inputs Ensure the documentation for source and rationale for the ~ D u compatible with the inputs supports the way the plant is currently or will be way the plant is operated post change and they are not in conflict with any operated and with the design parameters. ~6t t'lore 1..

licensinq basis?

I

CC*AA*103*1003 Revision 9 Page 8of11 ATTACHMENT 2 Owner's Acceptance Review Checklist for External Design Analyses Page 1b Design Analysis No.: L-002457 - - - - - - - - - - Rev:§. ___

No Question Instructions and Guidance 7 Are Engineering See Section 2. 13 in CC-AA-309 for the attributes that are Judgments clearly sufficient to justify Engineering Judgment. Ask yourself, documented and would you provide more justification if you were performing

ustified? this anal sis? If es, the rationale is likel incom lete.

8 Are Engineering Ensure the justification for the engineering judgment Judgments compatible supports the way the plant is currently or will be operated with the way the plant is post change and is not in conflict with any design operated and with the parameters. If the Analysis purpose is to establish a new licensing basis? licensing basis, then this question can be answered yes, if the *ud ment su orts that new basis.

9 Do the results and Why was the analysis being performed? Does the stated conclusions satisfy the purpose match the expectation from Exelon on the proposed purpose and objective of application of the results? If yes, then the analysis meets the Desi n Anal sis? the needs of the contract.

10 Are the results and Make sure that the results support the UFSAR defined conclusions compatible system design and operating conditions, or they support a

( with the way the plant is operated and with the proposed change to those conditions. If the analysis supports a change, are all of the other changing documents licensin basis? included on the cover sheet as im acted documents?

11 Have any limitations on Does the analysis support a temporary condition or the use of the results procedure change? Make sure that any other documents been identified and needing to be updated are included and clearly delineated in transmitted to the the design analysis. Make sure that the cover sheet appropriate includes the other documents where the results of this or anizations? anal sis rovide the in ut.

12 Have margin impacts Make sure that the impacts to margin are clearly shown D D been identified and within the body of the analysis. If the analysis results in documented reduced margins ensure that this has been appropriately appropriately for any dispositioned in the EC being used to issue the analysis.

negative impacts (Reference ER-AA-2007?

13 Does the Design Are there sufficient documents included to support the Analysis include the sources of input, and other reference material that is not applicable design basis readily retrievable in Exelon controlled Documents?

documentation?

14 Have all affected design Determine if sufficient searches have been performed to analyses been identify any related analyses that need to be revised along documented on the with the base analysis. It may be necessary to perform Affected Documents List some basic searches to validate this.

(AOL) for the associated Conti uration Chan e?

15 Do the sources of inputs Compare any referenced codes and standards to the current and analysis design basis and ensure that any differences are reconciled.

( methodology used meet If the input sources or analysis methodology are based on committed technical and an out-of-date methodology or code, additional reconciliation regulatory may be required if the site has since committed to a more re uirements? recent code

CC*AA*103*1003 Revision 9 Page 9of11 ATTACHMENT 2 Owner's Acceptance Review Checklist for External Design Analyses Page 1c Design Analysis No.: L-002457 - - - - - - - - - - Rev:§. _ _

No Question Instructions and Guidance Yes I No IN/A 16 Have vendor supporting Based on the risk assessment performed during the pre-job technical documents brief for the analysis (per HU-AA-1212), ensure that and references sufficient reviews of any supporting documents not provided (including GE DRFs) with the final analysis are performed.

been reviewed when necessa ?

17 Do operational limits Ensure the Tech Specs, Operating Procedures, etc. contain support assumptions operational limits that support the analysis assumptions and and in uts? in uts.

Create an SFMS entry as required by CC-AA-4008. SFMS Number: 41112..

c NOTE 1: LSCS IS CURRENTLY COMMITTED TO REV. 1 OF REGULATORY GUIDE (RG) 1.27 PER UFSAR REV. 19, APPENDIX 8. PER LAR RAI DATED JUNE 27, 2013, THE NRC DEEMED USE OF REV. 2 TO RG 1.27 AS ESSENTIAL.

DATE: IO /03

(

\,

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 2 CALCULATION TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION: PAGE NO. SUB-PAGE NO.

COVER PAGE 1 OAR CHECKLIST la-le TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 1.0 PURPOSE I OBJECTIVE 4 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 8 2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS 16 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS I ENGINEERING JUDGEMENTS 17 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS 20

5.0 REFERENCES

22 6.0 NUMERIC ANALYSIS 24

( 7.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 28 (Page 59-FINAL PAGE of Main Body)

ATTACHMENTS PAGES Attachment A - UHSAVG Files Al-A22 Attachment B-LAKET-PC Output Bl -B358 Attachment C - EXCEL Formulas Cl -Cl6 Attachment D - Attached References Dl -DI2 Attachment E - UHS Historical Operability El -E57 Attachment F - LAKET-PC Plot Data Fl -F31 Attachment G- LAKET-PC Analysis with Revised Decay Heat Gl -G72 Ratios and Increased Initial Lake Temperature Attachment H - LAKET-PC Analysis with Increased Plant Inlet Hl -H344 Temperature Requirement Attachment I - LAKET-PC Analysis for MUR PU and EPU ll-122 PROJECT NO. 11333-297 11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 3 Attachment J - UHS Flow Path Analysis Jl-J40 Attachment K - Preparation of Hourly Meteorological Data Kl-K6 Attachment L - Plant Temperature Rise Ll-L58 Attachment M - Weather File Creation Ml-M17 Attachment N - LAKET Validation Nl-N20 Attachment 0 - LAKET-PC Analysis for Rev. 2 of Reg. Guide 1.27 01-042 Attachment P - Plant Temperature Rise for Rev. 8 Pl-P58 c

..________________________P_R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3_33_-2_9_1________________________ ~11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 4 1.0 PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE The purpose of this calculation is to analyze the performance of the LaSalle County Station Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS). The calculation determines the design basis UHS performance for 30 days following an accident. The lake dike is assumed to have failed, Unit 1 is postulated to undergo a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) with loss of off-site power (LOOP), while Unit 2 undergoes normal shutdown. Worst-case weather conditions apply and no makeup water is credited.

The S&L LA.KET-PC computer program was utilized to determine the combined impact of power uprate and allowable sediment accumulation in the UHS. It was also used to perform analysis of maximum allowable initial UHS temperature to meet required UHS outlet temperatures.

1.1 Historical Analyses This calculation has undergone a number of revisions to address various issues as they have arisen.

Certain information from previous revisions has been retained for information or convenience. Some of this information is historical but no longer represents design information.

The assembly of the calculation writeup is as follows :

Main Body - The main body of the calculation was essentially re-written and formatted in Rev. 5 issue. The main body of Rev. 5 is revised in Rev. 6 to add new cases for 12" sediment level. For Rev. 7, the main body is revised to include new cases for extended power uprate (EPU) at a

( maximum plant intake temperature of l 04 °F and 107°F and the latest weather data. In Rev. 8, the main body is revised to incorporate new analysis for a more realistic heat load rejected to the UHS and Rev. 2 of Reg. Guide 1.27.

Attachment A - This attachment provides results of computer analysis of the approximately 50 years of weather data used in the analysis. The computer program UHS-AVG is used to select limiting weather periods for peak lake temperature and maximum evaporation. The method of selecting the limiting data and actual data is common to all revisions of the calculation up to Rev. 6. Selection of weather data for Rev. 7 is documented in Attachment M. Selection of weather data for Rev. 8 is documented in Attachment 0.

Attachment B - This attachment provides LAKET analysis results for the Rev. 3 issue of the calculation. This analysis supports limiting UHS temperatures of 100°F.

Attachment C - This attachment provides Excel spreadsheets and formulas used in computing (a)

UHS area and volumes, and (b) CSCS temperature rise across the plant for the Rev. 3 calculation.

The CSCS temperature rise across the plant is revised in Rev. 7 and documented in Attachment L.

The CSCS temperature rise across the plant is further revised in Rev. 8 and documented in Attachment P.

Attachment D - This attachment provides attached references.

Attachment E - This attachment provides an operability evaluation performed as a part of the Rev. 2 calculation.

Attachment F -This attachment provides LA.KET plot data used in Rev. 3.

Attachment G - This attachment provides LA.KET analysis of Rev. 4. This analysis supports limiting UHS temperature of 102 °F .

..________________________ P_Ro_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3_33_-2_9_1________________________11

I CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. s 11 Attachment H - This attachment provides the LAKET analysis of Rev. 5. This analysis supports limiting UHS temperatures of 104 °F. Attachment His revised in Rev. 6 to support 3 additional cases for 12" sediment level.

Attachment I - This attachment provides the LAKET analysis of Rev. 7. This analysis supports limiting UHS temperatures of 107°F at Measurement Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate (MUR PU) (3559 MW1) and EPU (4067 MW1) using Rev. 1 of Reg. Guide 1.27. Please note that the EPU cases do not represent current design basis since EPU was cancelled.

Attachment J - This attachment is added in Rev. 7 to document the determination of the effective area and effective volume of the UHS. Rev. 8 includes additional information.

Attachment K - This attachment is added in Rev. 7 to document the preparation of a new set of weather data using data from LaSalle Station and Peoria, IL from 1/1/1995 to 9/30/2010.

Attachment L - This attachment is added in Rev. 7 to document calculation of the plant temperature rise at MUR PU and EPU power levels. Please note that the EPU cases do not represent current design basis since EPU was cancelled.

Attachment M - This attachment is added in Rev. 7 to document creation of the worst weather and worst net evaporation LAKET weather files.

Attachment N - This attachment is added in Rev. 7 to document validation of the LAKET computer program through comparison to NUREG-0693. In Rev. 8, analysis of the UHS stratification is added to this attachment.

Attachment 0 - This attachment provides the LAKET analysis of Rev. 8. This analysis incorporates c

more realistic heat loads rejected to the UHS as developed in Rev. 4 of L-002453 [Ref. 5.8d] and supports limiting UHS temperatures of 107°F at MUR PU (3559 MW1) 'using Rev. 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.27.

Attachment P - This attachment is added in Rev. 8 to document calculation of the plant temperature rise at MUR PU (3559 MWt) power levels using the more realistic heat loads developed in Rev. 4 of L-002453 [Ref. 5.8d].

Most of the information in these appendices represents historical analysis and no longer serves as the design basis. However, some information, such as the geometry for the UHS (area and volume versus siltation) is still retained as design input for the current analysis.

1.2 Design Analysis for 102°F Inlet Temperature Limit In the Rev. 4 calculation, two issues were addressed:

The allowable maximum plant inlet temperature was raised to l 02°F and maximum initial UHS temperatures were detennined based on the new limit.

Core decay heat was increased to include contributions for additional actinides and activation products as documented in a separate calculation (Ref. 5.8].

The supporting analysis for these changes is documented in Appendix G.

PROJECT NO. 11333-297 I1

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 6 1.3 Design Analysis for 104°F Inlet Temperature Limit The Rev . S calculation addresses:

An increase in the allowable maximum plant inlet temperature to 104°F Attachment H documents this analysis and determines the maximum initial UHS temperature for a plant inlet temperature limit of l 04 °F. Several different test case scenarios were evaluated and the maximum initial UHS temperature allowed was determined for each. In addition, Appendix H also documents the following:

The Attachment H analyses use a new version of the LAKET software, although the underlying algorithms are unchanged. Test cases were run with the new code to confirm matching results from the previous version.

In addition, a new evaporation case was run with the new limiting initial temperature to confirm there is adequate inventory.

Finally, it was confirmed and documented that the previous design basis for CSCS heat load includes a conservative modeling of pump heat and single failure assumptions.

The Rev. 6 calculation addresses:

Incorporation of minor Rev. SA into the main body of the report. In Rev SA, the VHS requirement c

for use of fire water during accident and transient conditions was revised from 132,000 gals to 440,400 gals. This was incorporated into Assumption 3.7, UHS Inventory for Fire-Fighting.

The addition of three (3) new cases to evaluate the maximum initial lake temperature and evaporation based on 12 inches of sedimentation to the cases presented in Rev. S based on existing maximum plant inlet temperature of 104°F. The main body and Attachment H are revised to support the analyses of these new cases.

1.4 Design Analysis for 104°F and 107°F Inlet Temperature Limit Using Latest Weather Data up to September 2010 The Rev. 7 calculation addresses:

An allowable maximum plant inlet temperature of 104°F and an increase in the allowable maximum plant inlet temperature to 107°F for both MUR PU and EPU.

Addition of new weather data from LaSalle Station from January l, l 99S to September 30, 2010.

New determination of effective area and effective volume as a percentage of the total UHS area and total UHS volume.

Incorporation of the UHS requirement for use of fire water during accident and transient conditions of 440,400 gallons. In previous revisions, this had been deemed insignificant in an assumption. For this revision the assumption has been removed, and the 440,400 gallons is removed immediately following the postulated accident.

Increased core decay heat as a result of EPU.

Incorporation of spent fuel pool makeup flow from the UHS (600 gpm).

PROJECT NO. 11333-297 I1

I CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 1 f I 1.5 Design Analysis for 107°F Inlet Temperature using Revised Rejected Heat Load to the UHS The Rev. 8 calculation addresses:

A revised plant temperature rise calculation (see Attachment P) based on more realistic heat loads rejected to the UHS as developed in L-002453 [Ref. 5.8d] .

A revised methodology for selection of weather data based on Rev. 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.27 [Ref.

5.2].

Removal of spent fuel pool makeup flow from the UHS (600 gpm).

1.6 Classification, etc.

This calculation is safety related.

This mechanical calculation provides an unsteady thennal model that is used to determine the capacity of the LaSalle Station ultimate heat sink (UHS), a safety related structure.

Description Code: M03 (mechanical system capacity calculation)

System Code: ZZ

(

P-R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3_33___ 29_1__________________________.ll

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 8 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA This calculation determines the maximum allowable initial lake temperature that would support the 107°F CSCS maximum intake temperature limit for response to a postulated LOCA concurrent with the failure of the lake dike. The maximum allowable lake temperature is determined for average sediment accumulations of 0, 6, 12, and 18 inches.

(Other analyses supporting lower CSCS maximum intake temperatures are also documented as described in Section 1).

2.1 Methodology The method of analysis used in this calculation conforms to the position described in U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Regulatory Guide 1.27, "Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants", Revision 1 [Ref. 5.2].

The LaSalle Station is licensed to this version of the Reg. Guide. The USNRC has also issued a revision to this Reg. Guide (Rev. 2) to address Ultimate Heat Sinks with different configurations than the base configuration inherently assumed in the approach to modeling weather data per the Rev. l guide. In particular, the Rev. 2 guide addresses UHS designs with larger inventories with a transit time on the order of five days. The LaSalle UHS has a transit time of approximately one to two days. Analysis to Rev. 2 of the Reg. Guide [Ref. 5.2] was added in Rev. 5 and Rev. 6 of this calculation to conservatively supplement the design analysis per Rev. l. Rev. 7 analysis only considers the methodology given in Rev. 1 of the Reg.

Guide [Ref. 5.2]. Rev. 8 analysis uses the methodology of Rev. 2 of the Reg. Guide [Ref. 5.2] by considering the worst weather periods corresponding to the transit time of the UHS when selecting weather

( data.

Using this guidance, the worst synthetic weather period is assembled and used to analyze the transient temperature performance of the UHS using the LAKET computer program. For the selected time periods, the weather data is comprised of dry bulb temperature, humidity, wind speed, cloud cover, rainfall, and solar radiation variables that give rise to maximum water temperatures. Similarly, the consecutive 30-day maximum evaporation weather period is also evaluated to determine the impact of water inventory loss on UHS performance.

2.1.l Selection of Weather Data following R.G. 1.27. Rev. l (Peak Temperature)

Up to Revision 6 - R.G. 1.27, Rev. l guidance requires synthesis of the worst 31 day (worst 1-day + worst 30 consecutive days) weather period. The UHSAVG program [Ref. 5.7] is used to determine the worst 1 day and 30 day temperature periods. The weather data file contains weather station data from Peoria, IL and Springfield, IL for the dates between July 4, 1948 through June 30, 1996. The binary weather data file (pslsw-2.bin) for this historical worst weather period is documented in Appendix A of calculation L-001581, Rev. 0 [Ref. 5.4]. From the new, expanded weather data set, the worst single day is now July 15 to 16, 1995 while the worst thirty day period is from July 10, 1983 to August 9, 1983.

Revision 7 - The methodology used to determine the worst 1 day and 30 day temperature periods is documented in Attachment M. The worst weather is determined from two different weather files. The first weather data file considered is the one used in previous revisions of this calculation including weather station data from Peoria, IL and Springfield, IL for the dates between July 4, 1948 through June 30, 1996.

The second weather data file contains weather station data from LaSalle Station and Peoria, IL from January 1, 1995 to September 30, 2010. The worst single day is determined to be July 24, 2001 7:00AM to PROJECT NO. 11333-297 I1

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 9 July 25, 2001 6:00AM while the worst thirty day period is from July 21, 1995 4:00PM to August 20, 1995 3:00PM.

Revision 8 - Weather data selection following R.G. 1.27, Rev. l is not considered in this revision.

2.1.2 Selection of Weather Data following R.G. 1.27. Rev. 2 (Peak Temperature)

Up to Revision 7 - Selection of weather data following Reg. Guide (R.G.) 1.27, Rev. 2 is used for Rev. 5 and Rev. 6 of this calc. New selection of weather data for this Reg. Guide was not done for Rev. 7. The UHSAVG program [Ref. 5.7] is used to determine the worst 5 consecutive days, worst 1 day, and worst 30 consecutive days temperature period. The weather data file contains weather station data from Peoria, IL and Springfield, IL for the dates between July 4, 1948 through June 30, 1996. The worst 36-day period is documented in Attachment A of this calculation. The worst five day period is from July 12, 1995 to July 17, 1995. The worst one day and thirty day periods are the same as identified in Section 2.1.1.

Revision 8 - R.G. 1.27 Rev. 2 requires weather data selected based on the worst weather over the UHS transit time, the worst one day weather, and the worst 30 day weather. Alternatively, the worst consecutive day weather over a time period equal to the UHS transit time plus one day plus 30 days may be considered.

This revision considers both alternatives. The selection of weather data from LaSalle Station and Peoria, IL from January 1, 1995 to September 30, 2010 based on the R.G. 1.27 Rev 2 methodology is documented in Section 06.4 of Attachment 0.

2.1.3 Selection of Weather Data following R.G. 1.27 Rev. l (Peak Evaporation)

Guidance for selecting weather data for use in computing peak UHS evaporation over a thirty day period is based on R.G. 1.27, Rev. l, although requirements from Rev. 2 are virtually the same. The limiting evaporation period is from June 18, 1954 to July 18, 1954. Additional information is provided in Attachment A of this calculation.

Following the addition of the new weather data (LaSalle Station and Peoria, IL weather data from 111/1995 to 9/30/2010) it was confirmed that the limiting evaporation period from June 18, 1954 to July 18, 1954 remains the limiting evaporation period. See Attachment M for documentation of this analysis.

2.1.4 Plant Heat Load to the UHS The heat load to the UHS is documented in a separate calculation [Ref. 5.8]. This data is interpolated to fit the one-hour (three-hour up to Rev. 6) time increments required by LAKET. The CSCS temperature rise data for each one-hour (three-hour up to Rev. 6) increment is based on this heat load and computed and listed in Attachment P of this calculation. Attachment L calculated the CSCS temperature rise for EPU based on previous revision of the plant heat load calculation, L-002453 [Ref. 5.8). It is not used in Rev. 8, but is kept for historical purposes.

2.1.5 UHS Surface and Volume Data The approximate surface area and volume of the UHS for different postulated sediment accumulations is determined using the methodology documented in Appendix B of calculation L-001581, Rev. 0 [Ref. 5.4].

The UHS surface area and volume are provided in Table 7.1. The effective area and effective volume of the I UHS are determined in Attachment J.

PROJECT NO. 11333-297 11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE N0.10 2.1.6 CSCS Temperature Rise The temperature rise through the plant is used in LAKET-PC to compute the rise in water temperature caused by the heat rejected to the VHS during the postulated accident. It is determined by the following:

1:!,.T =QI (cp x m) where:

/:!,. T = plant temperature rise, [°F]

Q = heat rejection to the UHS, [Btu/hr]

Cp = specific heat of water, [Btu/(lb-°F)]

m = mass flow rate of water, [lb/hr]

The mass flow rate is determined from the CSCS volumetric flow rate in cfs:

m = 86.0 ft3/sec x 3600 sec/hr x 62.02 lb/ft3 = 19,201 ,392 lb,,,/hr (Up to Rev. 6) m = 86.0 ft3/sec x 3600 sec/hr x 62.00 lb/ft3 = 19,195,200 lb,Jhr (Rev. 7 and 8) m = 65.3 ft3/sec x 3600 sec/hr x 62.00 lb/ft3 = 14,574,960 lb,Jhr (Rev. 8)

The time increment for much of the weather data is three hours (one hour for Revisions 7 and 8). Since the temperature of the VHS does not change significantly over a three hour (or one hour) time period, it is sufficiently accurate to apply this time increment to calculate the average temperature rise for each time step.

C. 2.1.7 UHS Analysis for a 102°F Plant Inlet Temperature Limit Attachment G evaluates the ability of the UHS to maintain the plant inlet temperature below 102°F for the worst 31-day transient and worst 36-day transient analyses. The following cases are run as part of Attachment G:

Revision 4 (see Attachment G) rcase Start Time 1 Weathe*

Data Sediment Level (in.)

Methodology Design Criteria Assume Initial UHS Temp= 100°F; 1 09:00 1/30 0 Reg . Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 Verify Plant Inlet Temp::; 102.0°F I Assume Initial UHS Temp= 100°F; I

2 09:00 5/1/30 6 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 Verify Plant Inlet Temp::; 102.0°F Assume Initial UHS Temp= 100°F; 3 09:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 Verify Plant Inlet Temp::; 102.0°F i Assume Initial UHS Temp= 100°F; 4 06:00 I 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 Verify Plant Inlet Temp::; 102.0°F 2.1.8 UHS Analysis for a 104°F Plant Inlet Temperature Limit Attachment H evaluates the ability of the UHS to maintain the plant inlet temperature below 104°F for the worst 31-day transient, worst 36-day transient, and also documents the worst 30-day evaporation period analyses. There are total 9 cases in Rev. 5 and 3 cases in Rev. 6. All 12 cases are included as part of PROJECT NO. 11333-297 I1

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 11 Attachment H and summarized below:

Revision 5 (see Attachment H)

Case ~~art 1me j I Weather Data Sediment Level (in.)

Methodology I Design Criteria 09,00 - [---*---*-1/30--

--*-- --*-**-----**f-----**-*-*-* *--- *-- - - - - - ---- - **--*--*---*---*- ----*---*---*-*-------*---~------*--------------*----

. Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 1a 0 Reg. Guide 1*27

Rev. 1 Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 104.0°F

---- --**-----*--- --**-- 1---------*--- - - - -- -- - -- -*----

. Maximize Initial UHS Temp; f

6 2a 09:00 1/30 Reg. Guide 1*27

Rev. 1 Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 104.0°F 3a 0900 f*---- -1/-*--*- 30 18 Reg. Guide 1*27

Rev. 1 i Maximize Initial UHS Temp;

~Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 104.0°F

~~~-5/1/~- ------..------*--* ..

0 .

--**--*-- *--**-*-**~------*--------* --*--* -- - *-***-- -- -- - ----*-*----*----

raidm~e Initial UHS Temp; Reg. Guide 1*27

Rev. 2 Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 104.0°F

**-*--*--------~ - -- - - -*-------*- ----

. Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 2b 09:00 5/1/30 6 Reg. Guide 1*27

Rev. 2 Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 104.0°F I

. i Maximize Initial UHS Temp; l

Reg. Guide 1*27

Rev. ~quires Plant Inlet Temp~ 104.0°F 3b 09:00 5/1/30 18 Worst 30-day R G .d R Use limiting initial temperature from 1c 09:00 Evaporation 0 eg. ui e 1*27

ev. Case 1a or 1b Worst 30-day Use limiting initial temperature from 2c 09:00 6 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 1 Evaporation Case 2a or 2b

( 3c 09:00 I Worst 30-day I Evaporation 18 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 1 j Use limiting initial temperature from Case 3a or 3b LAKET-PC [Ref. 5.ld] and UHSAVG [Ref. 5.7] are filed and documented in the Sargent & Lundy Computer Software Library. UHS model runs were performed on PC Nos. 5121 and 5407 via network server SNLl for Rev. 5.

Revision 6 - Revision 6 of this calculation utilizes the same methodology Rev. 5 and is presented in Attachment H. Additional cases 4a, 4b and 4c were run to find the maximum initial UHS temperature for a sediment level of 12 inches.

Revision 6 {see Attachment H)

-i-I 1

Case

rt Time II Weather Data Sediment Level (in.) Methodology Design Criteria

- -*-~:--- o9:~~-r---*-~~~~---* -----~;**----- Re~-~~~ide-;*.~;~-~:~.~ I ~=~~~~:-~~~t~~ 1 ~~ ~tsr:~~~- ~~~~~--

1 10

~~---*- . . 09:~~---r----5/1~;~-- - - ;, -- ~:;-;;~-~===~=~~;T:~~p~::-

---*--..------***1*-*----L*-- --*-..---- - - , _---*---*--.. . ._.__ --*-*--**-- -*-;---- -*-*. - --------- - ---- -*-- ..-----*-*-

4c . 09 :00 I Worst 30-~ay Re . Guide 1.27 . Rev. 1 I Use limiting initial temperature from j j Evaporation .........,.12

~ g Case 4a or 4b.

LA.KET-PC [Ref. 5.ld] is filed and documented in the Sargent & Lundy Computer Software Library. UHS model runs were performed on PC No. ZL4578 for Rev. 6.

P-R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3-33_._29_1_________________________ l

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE N0.12 2.1.9 UHS Analysis for a 104°F and 107°F Plant Inlet Temperature Limit at MUR PU and EPU Attachment I evaluates the ability of the UHS to maintain the plant inlet temperature below 104°F or l 07°F for the worst 31-day transient and also documents the worst 30-day evaporation period analyses. The cases are run for both MUR PU and EPU power levels, and all cases use the Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. l methodology. All cases are included as part of Attachment I and summarized below:

Revision 7 (see Attachment I)

Start Power Level Sediment Case I Time Weather Data (MW1) Level (in.)

Design Criteria Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 1a 6:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 0 Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 1a- 104F 6:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 0 Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 104.0°F

*------*---*- *** -*--*-*----*-*-- ...----***---* 1.--...- *----**-*--..- * - - - -*--" *-*--*----*---- ~*---*-----*..---**-----*--**--*---*--*-*-*---*-----

Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 1a- MUR 6:00 1/30 3559 (MUR PU) 0 Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F i

1a_MUR_104F

' 6:00 1/30 3559 (MUR PU) 0 Maximize Initial UHS Temp; Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 104.0°F Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 2a 6:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 6 Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F c

Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 2a- 104F 6:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 6 I Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 104.0°F Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 2a_MUR 6:00 . 1/30 3559 (MUR PU) 6 Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F

**-.. -*--*------***~--*** *-*-----**-**-*-+-*--------*--**- --**--......._,_, ,.,_,__ ----- ----.....--------*--*------*

Maximize Initial UHS Temp;

*1~0 2a_MUR_104F 3559 (MUR PU) 6 Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 104.0°F I Maximize Initial UHS Temp; foo_

3a_12am 0.00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 18

. Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F j

Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 3a_3am 1/30 4067 (EPU) 18 Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F 3a_6am I 6:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 18 Maximize Initial UHS Temp; Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 3a 9am 9:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 18

---=---*-----1---*-*--,I-----* ,_ _ ___________ ._,,_ Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 3a_ 12pm 12:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 18 I Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F 3a_3pm 15:00 1130 ~ 4067 (EPU) 18 1

Maximize Initial UHS Temp; Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F

>----*-*--------**----*-*- **--*------*-**j--------**** ---*-- --------**--***---**-***--***--***---*---- - - :___------*--*---------***--**--**-------**- -*--

Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 3a 6pm II 18:00 ~ 1130 4067 (EPUJ 18 Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 107.0°F 3a_9pm I 2~~-! --~~30 - - 4067 (EPU) 18 Maximize Initial UHS Temp; Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F Maximize Initial UHS Temp; I

3a - 104F 6:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 18 Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 104.0°F

\.

P-R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3_33___ 29_7_________________________11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE N0.13 Case I Start I Tl~ Weather Data Power Level Sediment Design Criteria (MW1) Level (in.)

---*--*-*--**--*-*--*+--- -*---***--------*---....----*---------------* *------**-***.. .- -------*------

3a_MUR j 6:00 1/30 3559 (MUR PU) 18 I Maximize Initial UHS Temp; Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 107.0°F 3a_MUR_104F I 6:00 1/30 3559 (MUR PU) 18 Maximize Initial UHS Temp; Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 104.0°F 4a I 6:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 12 Maximize Initial UHS Temp; Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 107.0°F Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 4a_104F 6:00 1/30 4067 (EPU) 12 Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 104.0°F Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 4a_MUR I 6:00 1/30 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 107.0°F Maximize Initial UHS Temp; 4a_MUR_104F 6:00 I 1/30 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 104.0°F Worst 30-day Use limiting LAKET input initial 1c 0:00 4067 (EPU) 0 Evaporation temperature from Case 1a

---*--****--*--**------***1--- - -

2c I 0:00

~-- --- *-------*--*-*---- *****

Worst 30-day 4067 (EPU) 6 I temperature Use limiting LAKET input initial from Case 2a Evaporation 3c 0:00 Worst 30-day 4067 (EPU) 18 I Use limiting LAKET input initial Evaporation temperature from Case 3a c_*

Worst 30-day Use limiting LAKET input initial 4c 0:00 4067 (EPU) 12 Evaporation temperature from Case 4a Worst 30-day Use limiting LAKET input initial 1c_104F 0:00 4067 (EPU) 0 Evaporation temperature from Case 1a_104F Worst 30-day

Use limiting LAKET input initial 1c_MUR 0:00 3559 (MUR PU) 0 Evaporation temperature from Case 1a_MUR

......*------ *-**-*----- -* -- - - - * ----***-*****--*-* --*.. **----*-- ----- - - ---**---*'i----*H*-R*--*-----*- *-**-*--- ---------- -*--*--*-- - --*-*-**-** - - -

Worst 30-day Use limiting LAKET input initial 1c_MUR_104F 0:00 3559 (MUR PU) 0 Evaporation temperature from Case 1a_MUR_104F 2.1.10 UHS Analysis for a 107°F Plant Inlet Temperature Limit at MUR PU Attachment 0 evaluates the ability of the UHS to maintain the plant inlet temperature below 107°F for the worst 33 consecutive day transient and also documents the worst 30-day evaporation period analyses. The cases are run for MUR PU power levels, and all cases use the Reg. Guide l.27, Rev. 2 methodology. All cases are included as part of Attachment 0 and summarized below:

Revision 8 (see Attachment 0)

Case Weather Data Power Level (MW1)

Sediment Level (in.)

Design Criteria I Case 1a_12AM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) 0 I Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; I Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F i.----

Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 1a_3AM 33 3559 (MUR PU) 0 I 1 Requires Plant Inlet Temp:;; 107.0°F

\

.________________________P_R_o_J_E_c_T_N_o_._11_3_33_-_29_1________________________ ~11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 14 I

I Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 1a_9AM 33 3559 (MUR PU) 0 Requires Plant Inlet Temp< 107.0°F I 3559 (MUR PU) O Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 1a_12PM 33 i _Requires Plant Inlet Temps; 107.0°F I I 33 I1 3559 (MUR PU) Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 1a_3PM t-------J.-~-*----t-0

-----+-----f--R_e~qu_i_re_s_P~la=n~t~ln~le~t~T~e~m~p~s;~1~0~7

1

.0~°F~_J I

---=~~-~~=-~~-~-----*----~~-*--*r' *-35~~~~-~R p-~

Case 1a_9PM 33 3559 (MUR PU;*I--- - -; ---

0 ~::~i~~~~~~~1={~:1~~ :s1~~~~:F

"'i~iti~luHs Temp equal to TS Limit__ _

I I Requires Plant Inlet Temp< 107.0°F I I 3559 (MUR PU) i Case 2a_12AM 33 lnitial_LJHS Temp equal to TS Limit;

- -*-*-..-.. . . . . .--**-*-----..--..-- . . -.. . ._. _. _,, __.___.. . .. . . . j.... .- . .___. __ . _, ___,_ *- -

6

- ---* ** -~eq~ire: Plant Inlet Temps; 107.0°F I Case 2a_3AM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) 6 Initial UHS Te~-~~~;t~-TSLim.il;---*---

1 Requires Plant Inlet Temp< 107.0°F I I 3559 (MUR PU) 6 Initial UHS Temp equal to TS u~it:"--

Case 2a_6AM 33

! Requires Plant Inlet Temp< 107.0°F I Case 2a_9AM 33 3559 (MUR PU) 6 Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; C.

1

&---------~------ 1 *-- -~equires Plant Inlet Temp~ 107.0°F I i 3559 (MUR PU) Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; --

Case 2a_ 12PM 33 i

6 1 Requires Plant Inlet Temp< 107.0°F I I 3559 (MUR PU)

I Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 2a_3PM 33

- * -- - ** *-- --*.. * - * - - - - -* - * * *- - - - - -- -- - * - * * * * - 1 6

Requires Plant Inlet Temps; 107.0°F I l**;~~~-(~~~ PU) - ----;**-***--- ""lnit~l-UHS-T;,;-~~~-t~TS*L*i;it~*-------

Case 2a_6PM 33 1 Requires Plant Inlet Temp< 107.0°F I Case 2a_9PM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; 6

-*-***--.*--... ~..........-------*- **- -- ---*--*--- --~-~~~i_r:~la~le!_~~m~3-.2~!...:.~. :F __

I Case 3a_12AM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) lnitial _UHS Temp equal to TS Limit;

~-------!-------!

I 18 Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 107.0°F

--***- *--------- - - ----<I I

3559 (MUR PU) Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 3a_3AM 33 18 I

I I.

Requires Plant Inlet Temp< 107.0°F Case 3a_6AM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) lnitial_LJHS Temp equal to TS Limit; 18 I

-*--*---- - ..*-*--.. *-------- ----- ----------*---*--*J ..... ......._..._____,____ _

Case 3a_9AM 33 I 3559 (MUR ;u-;*------..1 Requires Plant Inlet Temps; 107.0°F

~....... ..... .l l.~iti~l:u-Hs-r;;~-equ-;i**;;15 u~it;-*--*--

r-- - - - - -- - - - ti______Jf-__ Requires Plant Inlet Temp~ 107.0°F I Case 3a_12PM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) 18 Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit;

******-*---- **---------***-- -..*-+---*-*-..-------- _____ Requires Plant Inlet Temps; 107.0°F I

~~** 3a_3PM I 33 .. j_ 3559 (MUR PU) I - ~;-~:,~3~E~~:~:~~~r.- I

.....______________________P_R_o_JE_c_r_N_o_._11_3-33___ 29_1______________________ _Jll

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE N0.15

(

Power Level Sediment Case Weather Data Design Criteria (MW1) Level (in.)

Case 3a_6PM I I 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) 18 Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; i

Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F I Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 3a_9PM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) 18 Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case4a_12AM 33 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 4a_3AM 33 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F Case4a_6AM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit;

..____.. Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F Case 4a_9AM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F I...*-------*-=------*-*-*----

Case 4a 12PM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F

- - - - **-*****-------L- ...._,_____, ________ *--*--*-*---- ..*--****- ........ , ..

I Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 4a_3PM 33 I 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F

- I I Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Case 4a_6PM 33 j 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F c Case4a_9PM 33 3559 (MUR PU) 12 Initial UHS Temp equal to TS Limit; Requires Plant Inlet Temp :s; 107.0°F 2.2 Acceptance Criteria This calculation assumes an initial UHS temperature and demonstrates that peak temperature acceptance criteria 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are met. The maximum initial UHS temperature is the maximum allowable lake temperature during normal operation.

2.2.1 Acceptance Criterion #1 - Peak Temperature -For the worst Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1composite31-day and Rev. 2 composite 36-day weather periods (up to Rev. 6), the maximum allowable plant water intake temperature from the UHS is variously 100°F (Rev. 3), 102°F (Rev. 4), l04°F (Rev. 5 through Rev. 7), or 107°F (Rev. 7, 31-day weather period only).

For Rev. 8, the peak temperature of the UHS shall not exceed the maximum allowable URS temperature of 107°F.

2.2.2 Acceptance Criterion #2 - UHS Inventory - There are no specific acceptance criteria for maximum UHS lake drawdown. However, for the worst 30-day evaporation period, the maximum lake drawdown is determined for input to calculation L-001355 [Ref. 5.13].

P-R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3-33___ 2s_?_________________________ l

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE N0.16 2.3 Limitations The results of this calculation are limited by the accuracy of the LAKET-PC program and models inherent in the code (see Ref. 5.14, for a comparison of the predictions of the LAKET program against lake intake temperatures observed in August 1989 at the LaSalle Station). In addition, see Attachment N for additional validation of LAKET.

2.4 Identification of Computer Programs An updated version of LAKET-PC [Ref. 5.lc] was used when perfonning calculations for Revision 4 (see Attachment G). Unlike its previous version, the weather files are in text format instead of binary. It was therefore necessary to use the Bin to Txt application included in LAKET-PC program number 03 .7.292-2.0

[Ref. 5.1] to convert previously used binary weather files into text files.

After the Rev. 4 issue of this calculation, LAKET-PC [Ref. 5.ld] was updated further to improve flexibility in modeling. This update did not change the basic modeling algorithms as demonstrated by re-running the Attachment G analyses. This latest version was used in the Rev. 5, Rev. 6, Rev. 7, and Rev. 8 of this calculation.

With each update that was made, verification calculations with previous calculations were made to ensure the newer, updated version of the software obtained results that matched its predecessor. For verification purposes, Case 0009 from the main body was recalculated prior to beginning Revision 4 calculations.

c Results were within 0.03°F of each other. Several previous cases were recalculated prior to conducting tests for Revision 5 for verification of results for the additional update. Since Revisions 6 through 8 utilize the same version of LAKET as Revision 5, no formal verification was necessary.

PROJECT NO. 11333-297 I1

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE N0.17

(

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS I ENGINEERING JUDGEMENTS 3.1 Makeup. Blowdown. Runoff. etc. - Consistent with previous calculations [Ref. 5.4 ], it is assumed that there is no makeup, blowdown, runoff, or dam spill in the UHS.

3.2 initial Natural Lake Temperature - Up to Revision 6, the initial natural UHS temperature is assumed to be 4.5°F lower than the initial forced UHS temperature. Higher initial natural temperatures produce higher peak UHS temperatures, if the peak temperature occurs in the first few days of the UHS transient. A previous calculation, L-002456 [Ref. 5.6a], analyzed the cooling lake for two units in full power operation (post-power uprate configuration) during the worst day and the worst five days in the weather history (July 15, 1995 and July 12 - 17, 1995). It found that the minimum difference between forced and natural lake temperatures during this peak lake temperature period is 4.5°F. The LOCA transient begins with a cooling lake dike failure and both units operating at full power. Although L-002456 [Ref. 5.6b] was revised for MUR PU and found an increase in maximum lake temperature by approximately 0.l °F, the minimum difference between forced and natural lake temperatures during the peak lake period of 4.5°F remains bounding. Therefore, this assumption remains conservative.

Revision 7 - The initial natural UHS temperature is conservatively assumed to be equal to the initial forced UHS temperature.

Revision 8 - The initial natural temperature is set to the natural temperature of the UHS at the initial time of c

each case. This is determined from the results of the worst weather determination cases

'WorstWeather_l 10.dat' and 'WorstWeather_120.dat' (see Attachment 0).

3.3 Sensible Heat Load from RCS - Up to Revision 6, it is conservatively assumed that all of the sensible heat from the reactor and the primary system is dissipated to the UHS within six hours. One-half of the heat is assumed to be rejected in the first 3-hour time step and the other half is rejected in the second 3-hour time step. This is based on the assumption that the temperature within the reactor will be at 100°F within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months . Peak calculated temperatures are not sensitive to the timing of the introduction of sensible heat within the first two time steps of the analysis. Note that the minimum time step for LAKET is three hours which is short relative to the transit time of the lake given by the UHS volume divided by the volumetric flow rate of CSCS flows or:

2 t1ransit =VI Q = (341.4 acre-ft)( 43,560 ft /acre) I (86.0 cfs) t1ransit = 172,923 sec = ~ 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months Where the UHS volume is taken from Table 7.3 and Q is taken from Assumption 3.5. Thus the time step (3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months ) is small relative to the transit time (48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months ).

Revision 7 - It is still assumed that all of the sensible heat from the reactor and the primary system is dissipated to the UHS within six hours. However, since LAKET is run using one hour time steps, one-sixth of the heat is assumed to be rejected in each of the first six hours. Also, with the new effective volume factor calculated in Attachment J and lake volume following removal of water for fire-fighting in Attachment I, the transit time of the UHS is changed. The new UHS transit time is:

2 t1ransit = V101.1 *(Effective Vol. Factor) IQ= (340.0 acre-ft)*(0.634)*(43,560 ft /acre) I (86.0 cfs)

(_ PROJECT NO. 11333-297 ,,

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE N0.18 t1ransit = 109,184 sec = - 30.3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (for 18-in of sedimentation)

The time step (one hour) is small relative to the transit time (30.3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months ).

Revision 8 - The dissipation of sensible beat to the UHS is considered in sections D6.1.1 and D6.2. l of L-002453 [Ref. 5.8d]. Due to a change in the UHS flow rate the transit time has changed. This calculation is documented in Section 06.3 of Attachment 0 .

ttransit = 123 ,063 sec = - 34.2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months (for 18-in of sedimentation) 3.4 UHS Surface and Volume - The effective surface area and volume are assumed to be 90% of the total surface area and volume. This is in accordance with Reference 5.14, which compares the predictions of the LAKET program against lake intake temperatures observed in August 1989 at the LaSalle Station.

Revision 7 and 8 - An effective area percentage of 57.9% of the total UHS area and an effective volume percentage of 63.4% of the total UHS volume are determined in Attachment J. This was determined for the 18-in of sedimentation case. The use of maximum silting reduces the UHS volume, and therefore the residence time. This reduces the effectiveness of the UHS and is thus conservative.

3.5 CSCS Flow - The total plant flow during the UHS analysis is assumed to be 38,600 gpm (86.0 cfs). The total flow is based upon the cumulative flow contribution from thirteen CSCS pumps operating at design flow conditions (eight RHR-SW pumps, 4,000 gpm each; three DG pumps, two at 1300 gpm and one at c

2,000 gpm; and two HPCS DG pumps, 1000 gpm each) {Ref.'s 5.11, 5.12].

Revision 7 - It is noted that the fuel pool emergency makeup flow rate is not included, as this flow does not return to the UHS (See Assumption 13.1).

Revision 8 - Due to an RHR pump and two RHR service water pumps being aligned for spent fuel pool cooling services, the total plant flow is 29,300 gpm (65 .3 cfs) for the first 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months following the UHS event and is 38,600 gpm (86.0 cfs) following the first 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months [Ref. 05 .11]. More detail is provided in Design Input 04.6. Additionally, the UHS no longer provides fuel pool emergency makeup flow.

3.6 Water Properties - Up to Revision 6, the density and specific heat of water in the UHS are assumed to be 62.02 lb/ft3 and 1 Btu/lb-°F, respectively [Ref. 5.10]. This corresponds to an assumed average temperature of98.5°F.

3 Revision 7 and 8 - The density and specific heat of water in the UHS are assumed to be 62.00 lb/ft and 0.998 Btu/lb-°F, respectively [Ref. 5.10]. This corresponds to an assumed average temperature of l00°F.

3.7 UHS Inventorv used for Fire Fighting - As stated in minor Revision 5A, the UHS requirement for use of fire water during accident and transient conditions was revised from 132,000 gals to 440,400 gals (See UFSAR Change Package LUCR #96. UFSAR section 9.2.6.3.a was updated by UFSAR Change Package LUCR #96). Assumption 3.7 is adjusted to account for the new UHS requirement for fire fighting in 3.7B.

A. Up to Revision 5 - The use of UHS inventory for fire fighting is insignificant. UFSAR Section 9.2.6.3

[Ref. 5.3) states that 132,000 gallons of water from the UHS must be available for fire fighting following an accident. Fire fighting could consume up to 0.41 acre-ft (132,000 gal x 0.1337 ft3/gal I 43,560 ft 2/acre). The volume and surface area of the UHS at its maximum drawdown of l.5 ft (El.

PROJECT NO. 11333-297 I1

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE N0.19

(

688.5 ft) are 341 acre-ft and 81.3 acres, respectively. Thus, fire water consumption would decrease the VHS heat capacitance by only 0.1% (0.41 acre-ft/341 acre-ft) and increase the maximum UHS drawdown by only 0.005 ft (0.41 acre-ft/81.3 acres).

B. Revisions 5 and 6 - The use of UHS inventory for fire fighting is insignificant. UFSAR Section 9.2.6.3

[Ref. 5.3] states that 440,400 gallons of water from the UHS must be available for fire fighting following an accident. Fire fighting could consume up to 1.352 acre-ft (440,400 gal x 0.1337 ft3/gal I 43,560 ft2/acre). The volume and surface area of the UHS at its maximum drawdown of 1.5 ft (El.

688.5 ft) are 341 acre-ft and 81.3 acres, respectively. Thus, fire water consumption would decrease the UHS heat capacitance by only 0.396% (1.352 acre-ft/341 acre-ft) and increase the maximum UHS drawdown by only 0.0166 ft (1.352 acre-ft/81.3 acres). This is less than 0.2 inches of drawdown.

C. Revision 7 and 8 - The use of UHS inventory for fire fighting is accounted for in the LAKET evaluations. It is assumed that all UHS inventory for fire fighting (440,400 gallons [Ref. 5.3]) is used immediately following an accident (See Assumption 13.2 in Attachment 1). This is conservative as it decreases the volume of water in the UHS.

3.8 Modeling of Precipitation - Up to Revision 6, in the UHS analysis for power uprate no credit is taken for precipitation. The worst UHS temperature and evaporation periods for the updated weather history were selected assuming there is no precipitation. The UHS maximum temperature and maximum evaporation cases were analyzed assuming there is no precipitation.

c Revision 7 and 8 - The worst UHS temperature and evaporation periods for the updated weather history were selected with precipitation included. Following selection of the worst periods, precipitation is conservatively removed, and analysis of the UHS maximum temperature and maximum evaporation cases were analyzed assuming there is no precipitation.

( l______________________P_R_o_JE_c_r_N_o._1_13_3_3._29_1_____________________.ll

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 20 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS 4.1 UHS Geometry - According to calculation L-001584 [Ref. 5.5], the surface area and volume profile for the UHS with no sediment accumulation can be represented as a series of fifteen, one-foot thick frustums , as follows (volume adjustments account for segments that are not frustums):

Segment Bottom Top Volume No Elevation Surface Area Surface Area Adjustment (ft} I! (ft3}

-ms--\(ft3}

I (acres) (acres) (acre-ft) j -

r--*-*-**--*---- --*--~--

15 675-676 332 0.0076 0.064 -

14 616-611 I 2186 0.064 8091 0.186 -

- - --*-- - -----"*--**-..**-*--*-* ----*-*-**-..---*-*------ -----*-- -----**------------*- t-*- -*----*-i----*------

13 677-678 8091 0.186 14,215 0.326 -

12 678-679 14,215 0.326 224,302 5.15 +2.27+1 .66*

11 679-680 224,302 5.15 275,605 6.33 -

10 680-681 275,605 6.33 353,588 I 8.12 -

9 681-682 353,588 8.12 423,844 l I 9.73 -

I 8 682-683 I 423,844 9.73 526,454 12.09 I

~- --

7 683-684 526,454 12.09 642,512 14.75 -

6 684-685 642,512 14.75 1,293,664 29.70 -0.84*

( i.------- *-

5 685-686 1,293,664 29.70 1,293,664** 29.70** +21.67+19.54*

*----- ..___ ..____..________________________..________ -------- e----*-*-----****-**-**-l------------ - ---*--*-*---

4 ~

686-687 3,368,632 77.33 3,439,517 I

I 78.96 -

3 687-688 3,439,517 78.96 3,508,668 80.55 I 82.15

~-- --

2 688-689 3,508,668 80.55 3,578,525

-*---*--*---** ----*-***--*-**-*----1-- --**--*-*---****----*** -*----------*-r---*---- ------*------**---*

1 689-690 II 3,578,525 82 .15 3,651,620 i 83.83

Adjustments to the frustum volumes account for the UHS bottom contour, localized hills and pockets

- Segment 5 is modeled as a cylinder with major adjustments to account for the UHS bottom contour According to Reference 5.5, the UHS volume for zero sediment deposition is 465 acre-ft. The surface area and volume profile data from Reference 5.5 are based on the latest lake survey performed in 1997.

According to UFSAR Section 9.2.6 [Ref. 5.3), the UHS volume for zero sediment deposition is 460 acre-ft.

The volume from 1997 lake survey data is only 1% greater than the volume cited in the UFSAR. Because of this and because the lake survey provides the best available volume and lake contour data, the lake survey data will be used in the UHS analysis.

4.2 Weather Periods 31 Day Synthetic Weather Period (R.G. 1.27. Rev. 1) - The worst combined 31-day historical weather period is based on weather data from July 4, 1948 through June 30, 1996 and is synthetically assembled in a data file (File Name: worstday-9am.txt) and is documented in Attachment H [see Attachment A and Ref.

5.4].

(\

___________________________P_R_o_J_Ec_T__ N_o_._11_3-33_-_29_1__________________________11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 21

(..

Revision 7 - The worst combined 31-day historical weather periods is based on weather data from July 4, 1948 through June 30, 1996 used in the previous revisions and weather data from January 1, 1995 through September 30, 2010 from LaSalle Station (with unavailable data from Peoria, IL). Selection of the worst weather day and worst weather 30 days and a synthetically assembled data file of these days are documented in Attachment M.

Revision 8 - The combined 31-day historical weather period is not used in this revision.

36 Day Synthetic Weather Period (R.G. 1.27. Rev. 2) - The worst combined 36-day historical weather period is based on weather data from July 4, 1948 through June 30, 1996 and is synthetically assembled in a data file (File Name: 5-l-30days9am.txt) and is documented in Attachment H [see Attachment A and Ref.

5.4).

Revision 7 and 8 - The worst combined 36-day historical weather period is not used in this revision.

30 Day Weather Period (R.G. 1.27. Rev. 1) - The worst 30-day historical weather period for evaporative losses is based on weather data from the sununer of 1954 as contained in a data file (File Name:

30dayevap.txt) and documented in Attachment H.

Revision 7 and 8 - The worst 30-day historical weather period for evaporative losses based on weather data from the summer of 1954 was determined to remain limiting when compared to worst 30-day weather period for evaporative losses from the LaSalle Station weather data from January 1, 1995 to September 30, 2010. This is documented in Attachment M.

C. Revision 8 - Weather file creation for this revision is documented in Section 06.4 in Attachment 0.

Weather files are created for several time periods including: 1) the worst 33, 39, 42, or 45 hours5.208333e-4 days 0.0125 hours 7.440476e-5 weeks 1.71225e-5 months followed by the next consecutive 31 days at various starting times and 2) synthetic weather files of the worst 33 hours3.819444e-4 days 0.00917 hours 5.456349e-5 weeks 1.25565e-5 months , worst 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months , and worst 30 days at various start times.

4.3 Seepage Rate 0.2 cfs [Ref. 5.4) 4.4 CSCS Pond Length 5500 ft [Ref. 5.4) 4.5 UHS Heat Load Appendices L9.l and L9.3 in Attachment L (Rev. 7) [Ref. 5.8]

Appendix P9. l in Attachment P (Rev. 8) (Ref. 5.8) 4.6 Current T.S. Allowable Sediment Accumulation in the UHS 1.5 feet (average) [Ref. 5.9]

4.7 Maximum Allowable CSCS Intake Temperature Case Specific 4.8 Other - See Attachment G for additional Revision 4 Design Inputs, Attachment H for additional Revision 5 and 6 Design Inputs, Attachment I for additional Revision 7 Design Inputs, and Attachment 0 for additional Revision 8 Design Inputs.

(

P_R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3_33_-2_9_1_________________________11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 22

5.0 REFERENCES

5.1 a) LAKET-PC Computer Prog., Version 1.0, S&L Program No. 03.7.292-1.0, October 1997.

b) LA.KET-PC Plot Prog., Version 1.2, S&L Program No. 03.7.292-1.2, Nov. 1999 c) LAKET-PC Computer Prog., Version 2.0, S&L Program No. 03.7.292-2.0, Aug. 2004 (Rev. 4).

d) LAKET-PC Computer Prog., Version 2.2, S&L Program No.03.7.292-2.2, Dec. 2004 (Rev. 5, 6, 7, and 8).

5.2 "Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.27, Rev. 1, March 1974 and Rev. 2, January 1976.

5.3 "Ultimate Heat Sink," LSCS-UFSAR, 9.2.6, Rev. 19.

5.4 "Sensitivity Study for Ultimate Heat Sink Sizing," Calculation L-001581, Rev. 0, December 23, 1997.

5.5 "Volume of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)," Calculation L-001584, Rev. 1, March 25, 1998.

5.6 a) "LaSalle County Station Cooling Lake Performance;" Calculation L-002456, Rev. 1.

b) "LaSalle County Station Cooling Lake Performance," Calculation L-002456, Rev. la.

5.7 UHSAVG Computer Program, S&L Program No. 03.7.642-1.0, August 1997.

c 5.8 a) "UHS Heat Load," Calculation L-002453, Rev. 1, December 1999.

b) "UHS Heat Load," Calculation L-002453, Rev. 2, April 2002.

c) "UHS Heat Load," Calculation L-002453, Rev. 3, June 2012.

d) "UHS Heat Load," Calculation L-002453, Rev. 4.

5.9 LaSalle Technical Specifications, SR 3.7.3.2, Surveillance Requirements, Amendment 206/193.

5.10 STMFUNC Computer Program, S&L Program Number STM 03.7.598-2.0, May 2003 .

5.11 LaSalle CSCS Pump Curves, Crane-Deming, (Attachment D):

a) T-5669, "Pump Performance Curve for 2E12-C300A," Rev. 1.

b) T-5670, "Pump Performance Curve for 2El2-C300B," Rev. 1.

c) T-5671, "Pump Performance Curve for 2E12-C300C," Rev. I.

d) T-5672, "Pump Performance Curve for 2El2-C300D," Rev. l.

e) T-5695, "Pump Performance Curve for 1E12-C300A," Rev. l.

f) T-5706, "Pump Performance Curve for 1El2-C300B," Rev. I.

g) T-5707, "Pump Performance Curve for 1El2-C300C," Rev. I.

h) 1821-2, "Pump Performance Curve for 1E12-C300D," Rev. I.

i) 1940-2, "Pump Performance Curve for ODGOlP," Rev. A.

j) 19516, "Pump Performance Curve for lDGOlP & 2DG01P," Rev. I.

P-R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3-33_._29_1_________________ _______~11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 23 5.12 VPF 3275-048, "Pump Performance Curve," Union Pump Co. HPCS DG Pump IE22-C002 and HPCS DG Pump 2E22-C002, Rev. 2 (Attachment D).

5.13 L-001355, "LaSalle County Station CSCS Hydraulic Model," Rev. 005A.

5.14 S&L's January 5, 1990 Study, "Comparison of Cooling Lake Temperature Predictions from the LAKET Computer Model with Observed Lake Temperatures for the Summer of 1989," in file WIN 0858 (provided as an Attachment to Reference 5.6, "LaSalle County Station Cooling Lake Performance," Calculation L-002456, Rev. 1, December 13, 1999).

5.15 Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 9th Edition, Edited by Avallone and Baumeister, McGraw-Hill, 1987 5.16 Letter from Mike Peters, Lasalle Station to Manuel Vega, S&L.

Subject:

Requested Input for L-002457 Revision 5. (See pp. H23) 5.17 Email from Paul Derezotes, S&L to Michael Duffy, S&L, "Uhsavg Program Capabilities Summary for Lasalle." (See pp. H24) 5.18 GE Letter SC06-0l, dated 1/19/2006, "Plants with GE Containment Design or Analysis (Attachment l)"

c

.._________________________ PR_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3_3_3--29_1_________________________11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 24 6.0 NUMERIC ANALYSIS 6.1 Calculation of Plant Temperature Rise, ~T The CSCS temperature rise across the plant is computed per the method described in Section 2.1.6. Table G7. l contains the average temperature rise for each time step for the Rev. 4, 5, and 6 analyses. The average temperature rise for MUR PU and EPU is calculated in Attachment L for the Rev. 7 analysis. The plant heat load calculation [Ref. 5.8d] was revised to incorporate more realistic heat loads. The plant temperature rise based on the revised heat loads are calculated in Attachment P for the Rev. 8 analysis.

(Note that the beat load data for the Rev. 3 analyses for each three-hour increment is listed in Table 7.2 and Figure 7.14 of this calculation).

The EXCEL formulas and interpolation macro for the temperature rise up to Rev. 6 are printed in Attachments C and G. The interpolation is verified by inspection. The tables are produced using EXCEL Version 97SR-l. Formulas for determining the CSCS temperature rise across the plant in Rev. 7 are shown in Attachment L. Formulas for determining the CSCS temperature rise across the plant in Rev. 8 are shown in Attachment P.

6.2 UHS Area and Capacity The area-capacity profile of the UHS is determined for three sediment accumulation levels: 0, 0.5, and 1.5 c

feet for Rev. 5 and 1 foot for Rev. 6. The existing technical specification limit on minimum UHS volume is an average sediment accumulation of 1.5 feet. The 0.5-foot and 1-foot sediment accumulation cases were selected as an intermediate level of volume degradation that could potentially serve as a new technical specification limit. (As can be seen in the Table 6.1 computation of UHS volume, an average sediment accumulation of 0.5 ft corresponds to a UHS volume of 423.5 acre-ft.)

The area-capacity profile of the UHS is computed using the inputs of calculation L-001584 [Ref. 5.5] and the methodology of calculation L-001581 [Ref. 5.4]. The UHS is modeled as a series of one-foot thick horizontal slices, each in the shape of a frustum. The survey data summarized in Design Input 4.1 provides the surface areas of the top, A17 and the bottom, Ab, of each of these segments (of depth, d). The volume of each of these frustums is (A1 +Ab+ [(A1)(Ab)]i;, )(d/3) [Ref. 5.15]. Deviations from the frustum shape within each of the segments are accounted for by the volume adjustments identified in Design Input 4.1.

Because a somewhat simpler methodology was used, the results of the area-volume profile calculation are slightly different than those of calculation L-0015 84 [Ref. 5.5).

The area-capacity profiles are computed in the Excel spreadsheet shown in Table 6.1 and Appendix C (EXCEL Version 97SR-l). Sediment is assumed to deposit in a layer of uniform vertical thickness along the bottom and sloped sides of the UHS. A one-foot sediment accumulation results in a one-foot translation upward of the UHS geometry, which is modeled as a reassignment of the dimensions of each segment to the next highest neighboring segment. Fractional-foot sediment accumulation is modeled as the fractional reassignment of the dimensions of each segment to higher segments. Each one-foot thick segment is then composed of fractional-foot thicknesses of two neighboring frustums.

For the 0, 0.5, 1, and 1.5-foot sediment cases, area and capacity were computed at elevation 690 ft and at one-foot intervals down to elevation 685 ft. The areas, incremental volume and total volume for these elevations are shown in bold type in Table 6.1. The LAKET-PC runs use the area and volume for only these first six elevations. For the 0, 0.5, 1, and 1.5-foot cases below elevation 685 ft, area and volume are

P-R_o_J_Ec_r__N_o_.1_1_3_33_-2_9_1__________________________11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 25 computed only at intermediate elevations such as 683.5 and 684.5 ft.

Data from the Table 6.1 spreadsheet that is used as LAKET-PC input is listed in Table 7 .1.

For Revision 7, the UHS volume and area input to LAKET are revised to incorporate the effects of removing water for fire-fighting. See Attachment I for further documentation of the changes to UHS volume and area. In addition, the effective area and effective volume of the UHS are changed as a result of the analysis in Attachment J. See Attachment I for further documentation of t4e changes to UHS volume and area.

Revision 8 uses the same UHS volume and area input as developed in Revision 7.

6.3 Maximum Allowable Lake Temperature 6.3.1 UHS Temperature Limit of 100°F - Rev. 3 Analysis The UHS analysis is performed using the LA.KET-PC computer program. For postulated safe shutdown and design basis accident events, the peak UHS temperature must be kept within the CSCS intake temperature limit of 100°F. The analysis determines the maximum lake intake temperature that can be allowed during normal operation, consistent with the 100°F temperature limit. Three sediment depths are modeled for the worst 36-day composite temperature period. A no sediment case, a 0.5-foot sediment case, and a 1.5-foot sediment case are run for the updated weather data conditions. The 0.5-foot sediment case corresponds to a potentially new technical specification limit of 423.5 acre-ft on UHS volume. The 1.5-foot c

case corresponds to the current technical specification limit on average UHS sediment deposition.

In assuming the initial UHS temperature is equal to the maximum allowable temperature of the cooling water supply to the plant from the lake, one is assuming conditions more severe than occur in the weather history. Because of this, the peak temperature occurs in the first day of these UHS transients and the time of day at which the transient is assumed to begin becomes critical. To account for the time of day at which the UHS transient may start, eight start times (00:00, 03:00, 06:00, 09:00, 12:00, 15:00, 18:00 and 21:00) are used for each of the three sediment depths being analyzed.

Limiting initial UHS temperatures are found for the 24 combinations of start time and sediment depth for:

1. the first day of the UHS transient is worst day in the weather history (July 15, 1995), and

2. the first day in the UHS transient is the first of the worst five days in the weather history (July 12 -

17, 1995).

The limiting initial UHS temperatures found by these two tests are listed in Table 7.3, plotted in Figure 7.1 and documented in Attachment B. Table 7 .3 indicates which of the two tests, the one-day or the five-day test, produced the most restrictive temperature limit for each case. Three of the post-LOCA temperature transients are shown in Figures 7.2, 7.6, and 7.10. The corresponding post-LOCA drawdowns are shown in Figures 7.3, 7.7 and 7.11. (The LAKET-PC data used to generate these plots is provided in Attachment F.)

The three cases selected for these plots are the sediment depths of 0, 0.5 and 1.5 ft, the start time of 09:00, and the worst 36-day composite weather history (consistent with R.G. 1.27, Rev. 2). The limiting initial UHS temperatures are consistent with a peak CSCS intake temperature of 100°F.

In addition to determining the post-LOCA temperature response of the UHS to the worst 36-day temperature period, the maximum UHS drawdown was determined for the worst 30-day evaporation period (in accordance with R.G. 1.97, Rev. 2). A 0-foot, a 0.5-foot and a 1.5-foot sediment case are run with the

\

" PROJECT NO. 11333-297 I1

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 26 updated weather data. The 0.5-foot sediment case corresponds to a potentially new technical specification limit on UHS volume of 423.5 acre-ft and the 1.5-foot sediment case is the existing technical specification limit. UHSAVG selected the time of day at which the drawdown transient begins. LAKET-PC output for the 30-day evaporation cases is documented in Attachment B. The post-LOCA temperature transients are shown in Figures 7.4, 7.8 and 7.12 and the post-LOCA drawdowns are shown in Figures 7.5, 7.9 and 7.13.

(The LAKET-PC data used to generate these plots is provided in Attachment F.) Initial UHS temperatures were selected to produce a peak CSCS intake temperature of 100°F.

6.3.2 UHS Temperature Limit of 102°F- Rev. 4 Analysis For this analysis, the limiting plant intake temperature is increased to 102°F. Limiting weather data is unchanged from the Rev. 3 analysis. Further, the limiting start time for the transient is based on the parametric analysis per Rev. 3. Thus 09:00 hrs (9 AM) is taken as the most limiting start time. The limiting initial UHS temperature obtained for this start time can be conservatively applied as a maximum operating lake temperature for any time during the day. Analysis and results are documented in Attachment G.

6.3 .3 UHS Temperature Limit of 104°F - Rev. 5 and 6 Analyses For this analysis, the limiting plant intake temperature is increased to 104°F. Limiting weather data is unchanged from the Rev. 3 analysis. Further, the limiting start time for the transient is based on the parametric analysis per Rev. 3. Thus 09:00 hrs (9 AM) is taken as the most limiting start time. The limiting initial UHS temperature obtained for this start time can be conservatively applied as a maximum operating lake temperature for any time during the day. Rev. 6 utilizes the same methodology as Rev. 5 for additional cases to analyze the maximum initial UHS temperatures for 1 ft of sediment. Analysis and results are documented in Attachment H.

6.3.4 UHS Temperature Limit of 104°F and 107°F for EPU and MUR PU - Rev. 7 Analysis For this analysis, the limiting intake temperature is 104°F and 107°F. The limiting weather data is updated from the previous revisions, as documented in Attachment M. The limiting time of day at which the UHS starts is determined by running Case 3a ( 107°F intake temperature, 18-in sediment level, EPU power level) at eight different start times (00:00, 03 :00, 06:00, 09:00, 12:00, 15:00, 18:00 and 21:00) and determined to be 6:00AM. The limiting initial UHS temperature obtained for this start time can be conservatively applied as a maximum operating lake temperature for any time during the day. Analysis and results are documented in Attachment I.

6.3.5 UHS Temperature Limit of l07°F for MUR PU - Rev. 8 Analysis For this analysis, the limiting intake temperature is 107°F. The limiting weather data is updated from the previous revisions, as documented in Section 06.4 of Attachment 0 in order to conform to Rev. 2 of R.G.

1.27 [Ref. 5.2]. Cases are run for eight different start times (00:00, 03:00, 06:00, 09:00, 12:00, 15:00, 18:00 and 21 :00) at four different sedimentation levels (0 in, 6 in, 12 in, and 18 in). Analysis and results are documented in Attachment 0.

6.4 30-Day Evaporation Up to Revision 6 - The limiting initial temperature for the various amounts of siltation (see Section 7.1.3) is used as the starting point for the 30-day evaporation case to demonstrate negligible impact on previous results. Results documented in Attachment H demonstrate that the UHS evaporative losses are less than PROJECT NO. 11333-297 I1

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 27 1.5-ft for the worst 30-day evaporative period.

Revision 7 - The limiting initial temperature for the various amounts of siltation (see Section 7.1.3) is used as the starting point for the 30-day evaporation case to determine the maximum amount of UHS drawdown.

For the 107°F limiting intake temperature and EPU power level, the limiting sediment level is determined to be 0-in. For other cases (i.e. 104°F or MUR PU) only the limiting sediment level case (0-in) is run. Results are documented in Attachment I.

Revision 8 - Worst 30-day net evaporation cases are run for the four levels of sedimentation. Results are documented in Attachment 0 .

(

PROJECT NO. 11333-297 11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 28

(

7.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 7.1 Summary 7 .1.1 Historical Results - Rev. 3 and Earlier The inclusion of weather conditions from 1982 to 1996 significantly increases the severity of the UHS design basis temperature transient. The worst 36-day composite weather period was developed from July 1948 through June 1996 weather history for the area. The UHSA VG program determined the worst 36-day (worst 5-day +worst 1-day +worst 30 consecutive day) period to be: 09:00, July 12, 1995 through 06:00, July 17, 1995; 12:00, July 15, 1995 through 09:00, July 16, 1995; and 15:00, July 10, 1983 through 12:00, August 9, 1983 (see Appendix A for details).

In analyzing the effect of beginning the UHS temperature transient at the maximum allowable cooling lake temperature, one is assuming conditions more severe than those that have occurred in the weather history.

Because of this the peak UHS temperature occurs in the first day of the LOCA transient. The results of the LAKET-PC analysis for the each of the UHS transient start times are summarized in Table 7.3 and Fig. 7.1.

The maximum design intake temperature for the CSCS system is l00°F (Rev. 3 analysis]. To meet this requirement, the daily high temperature of the cooling water supply to the plant from the lake would have to be limited to 97.5°F. This limit is consistent with the 96.5°F limit at 9:00 am for 1.5-foot silt depth (341.4 c

acre-ft volume) in the UHS (see Sec. 7.5 for justification). According to Calculation L-002456, Rev. 1

[Ref. 5.6], the 09:00 temperature of the cooling water supply to the plant from the lake on the worst day of the weather history is 95.4°F. As can be seen in Figure 7.1, the l.1°F margin between the historically hottest day and the initial UHS temperature limit is the smallest margin that exists for any starting time of the UHS design temperature transient. This margin provides an assurance that there is little risk that the most restrictive temperature limits on cooling lake temperature will be exceeded in the future. If the minimum allowable UHS volume were changed to 423.5 acre-ft (0.5 ft average sediment depth),

temperature of the cooling water supply to the plant from the lake would have to be limited to 97.5°F at 9:00.

The maximum drawdown for power uprate under the maximum evaporation conditions is approximately 1.5 feet (El. 688.5 feet). The UHSAVG program determined the worst 30-day evaporation period to be 12:00, June 18, 1954 through 09 :00, July 18, 1954. The worst 30-day evaporation period shifted 3 Yi days from the period identified in the UFSAR Sec. 9.2.6.3.1 prior to power uprate. This shift was caused by four minor changes in the modeling of the worst evaporating period that were made when UHSAVG was converted from a mainframe to a PC-based program:

l. The solar radiation model was improved.

2. The method for synthesizing missing weather data was improved.

3. The UHS surface area and volume were updated to reflect lake survey data.

4. The average daily heat load was updated for power uprate.

P-RO_J_E_c_r_N_o_._1_13_3_3--29_1________________ _________11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 29 7.1.2 UHS Temperature Limit of 102°F -Rev. 4 Analyses Maximum Initial UHS Tern >eratures - Revision 4 (see Attachment G)

Start Weather Sediment Limiting Initial UHS Case Methodology Time Data Level (in.) Temperature 1 09:00 1/30 0 Reg . Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 >100°F 2 09:00 5/1/30 6 Reg. Guide 1.27 . Rev. 2 >100°F 3 09:00 1/30 18 Reg . Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 99.35°F 4 06:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 >100°F 7.1.3 UHS Temperature Limit of 104°F -Rev. 5 and Rev. 6 Analyses Maximum Initial UHS Tern 1>eratures - Revision 5 (see Attachment H)

Start Weather Sediment Limiting Initial UHS Case Methodology Time Data Level (in.) Temperature 1a 09:00 1/30 0 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 103.0°F 2a 09:00 1/30 6 Reg . Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 102.9°F 3a 09:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 102.3°F 1b 09:00 5/1/30 0 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 103.6°F 2b 09:00 5/1/30 6 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 103.5°F

( 3b 09:00 5/1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 102.9°F Maximum Initial UHS Tern >eratures - Revision 6 (see Attachment ff)

Start Weather Sediment Limiting Initial UHS Case Methodology Time Data Level (in.) Temperature 4a 09:00 1/30 12 Reg . Guide 1.27;'Rev. 1 102.7 4b 09:00 5/1/30 12 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 103.0 The values above are rounded to the nearest 0.1°F and do not include margin.

7.1.4 VHS Temperature Limit of 104°F and 107°F at MUR PU and EPU - Rev. 7 Analyses The inclusion of weather conditions from January 1995 to September 20 IO from LaSalle Station (with unavailable weather parameters from LaSalle Station taken from Peoria, IL, see Attachment K) further increases the severity of the UHS design basis temperature transient. The limiting initial VHS temperatures at the sediment levels analyzed for a plant intake limit of 104°F or 107°F at MUR PU and EPU power levels are shown in the table below (See Attachment I for further documentation) .

.._________________________P_R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3_33___ 29_1__________________________11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 30 MUR PU Maximum Initial UBS Temperatures - Revision 7 (see Attachment I)

Start Weather Sediment Limiting Initial UHS Case Methodology Time Data Level (in.) Temperature 1a_MUR 06:00 1/30 0 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 103.63 2a_MUR 06:00 1/30 6 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 103.32 3a_MUR 06:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 102.46 4a_MUR 06:00 1/30 12 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 102.93 1a_MUR_104F 06:00 1/30 0 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 100.30 2a_MUR_104F 06:00 1/30 6 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 99.95 3a_MUR_ 104F 06:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 91 .68 4a_MUR_ 104F 06:00 1/30 12 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 89.54 EPU Maximum Initial UHS Temperatures - Revision 7 (see Attachment I}

Start Weather Sediment Limiting Initial UHS Case Methodology Time Data Level (in.) Temperature 1a 06:00 1/30 0 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 103.63 2a 3a_12am

- 06:00 00:00 1/30 1/30 6

18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 103.32 104.95 3a_.3am 03:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 103.14 c.- 3a_6am 3a_9am 06:00 09:00 1/30 1/30 18 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 102.42 103.61 3a_12pm 12:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 105.80 3a_3pm 15:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 106.97 3a_6pm 18:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 107.00 I

3a_9pm 21:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 107.00 4a 06:00 1/30 12 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 102.93 1a_104F 06:00 1/30 0 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 100.30 2a_104F 06:00 1/30 6 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 96.80 3a_104F 06:00 1/30 18 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 87.01 4a_104F 06:00 1/30 12 Reg. Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 85.47

7. I .5 UHS Temperature Limit of I 07°F - Rev. 8 Analyses Revision 8 incorporates the weather conditions from January 1995 to September 2010 from LaSalle Station and analyses the UHS design basis temperature transient based on a more realistic MUR PU (3559 MW 1) heat load rejected to the UHS and weather selection based on R.G. 1.27, Rev. 2 [Ref. 5.2]. The LAKET-PC

[Ref. 5. l] cases are run using the TS limiting temperatures as the initial temperature, and the results are compared to the UHS temperature limit of 107°F. The results of this analysis are shown below (See Attachment 0 for further documentation) .

.._________________________P_R_o_J_Ec_r__ No__.1_1_33_3_-2_9_1________________________ _.ll

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 31 Uiis Temperatures at Maximum Allowable Initial Temperature - Revision 8 (see AttachmentOJI Initial UHS Maximum UHS Start Weather Sediment Case Methodology Temperature Temperature I Time Data Level (in.) (oF) (oF)

I Case 1a_12am 00:00 33 0 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.53 104.53 Case 1a_3am 03:00 33 0 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 102.72 102.72 Case 1a_6am 06:00 33 0 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 102.00 103.12 Case 1a_9am 09:00 33 0 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 103.19 104.33 Case 1a_12pm 12:00 33 0 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.97 Case 1a_3pm 15:00 33 0 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 Case 1a_6pm 18:00 33 0 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 Case 1a_9pm 21:00 33 0 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 Case 2a_12am 00:00 33 6 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.53 105.21 Case 2a_3am 03:00 33 6 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 102.72 104.54 Case 2a_6am 06:00 33 6 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 102.00 103.21

~a9am 09:00 33 6 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 103.19 104.42 Case 2a_12pm 12:00 33 6 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.99 Case 2a_3pm 15:00 33 6 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 c

Case 2a_6pm 18:00 33 6 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 Case 2a_9pm 21:00 33 6 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 Case 3a_12am 00:00 33 18 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.53 104.53 Case 3a_3am 03:00 33 18 Reg : Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 102.72 105.75 Case 3a_6am 06:00 33 18 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 102.00 106.15 Case 3a_9am 09:00 33 18 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 103.19 105.31 Case 3a_12pm 12:00 33 18 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 105.05 Case 3a_3pm 15:00 33 18 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 Case 3a_6pm 18:00 33 18 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 Case 3a_9pm 21:00 33 18 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 Case 4a_ 12am 00:00 33 12 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.53 105.86 Case 4a_3am 03:00 33 12 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 102.72 105.97 Case 4a_6am 06:00 33 12 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 102.00 105.33 Case4a_9am 09:00 33 12 Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 103.19 104.54 Case 4a_12pm 12:00 33 12 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 105.01 Case 4a_3pm 15:00 33 12 Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75

-Case

4a_6pm 18:00 33 12 I Reg. Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75 Case 4a_9pm 21:00 33 12 l Reg . Guide 1.27. Rev. 2 104.75 104.75

P-R_o_JE_c_r_N_o __ .1_1_33_3_.2_9_1________________________.... l

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 32 7.1.6 UHS Drawdown for Temperature Limit of 104°F - Rev. 5 and 6 Analyses Computed drawdown for the UHS is <l.5-ft for the limiting case analysis.

7.1.7 UHS Drawdown for Temperature Limit of 104°F/107°F at MUR PU and EPU - Rev. 7 Analysis The computed drawdown for the UHS for a temperature. limit of 104°F or 107°F at MUR PU and EPU power levels are shown below (See Attachment I for further documentation).

MUR PU Maximum Lake Drawdown - Revision 7 (see Attachment I)

Sediment Maximum Lake Drawdown Case Weather Data (ft) 1 Level (in.)

1c_MUR Worst Net Evap. 0 2.24 1c_MUR_104F Worst Net Evap. 0 2.22

1) Determined from initial lake elevation of 689.98-ft .

EPU Maximum Lake Drawdown - Revision 7 (see Attachment I)

Sediment Maximum Lake Drawdown Case Weather Data (ft),

Level (in.)

1c Worst Net Evap. 0 2.27 2c Worst Net Evap. 6 2.25 18 2.20

(

3c Worst Net Evap.

4c Worst Net Evap. 12 2.23 1c_104F Worst Net Evap. 0 2.26

1) Determined from initial lake elevation of 689.98-ft.

7.1.8 UHS Drawdown for Temperature Limit of 107°F - Rev. 8 Analysis The computed drawdown for the UHS for a temperature limit of l 07°F for the new heat loads developed in L-002453 [Ref. 5.2d] are shown below (See Attachment 0 for further documentation).

Maximum Lake Drawdown - Revision 8 (see Attachment 0)

Sediment Maximum Lake Drawdown Case Weather Data (ft)1 Level (in.)

1c Worst Net Evap. 0 1.42 2c Worst Net Evap. 6 1.42 3c Worst Net Evap. 18 1.42 4c Worst Net Evap. 0 1.42 Worst Net Evap.,

NetEvap_0.1 Wind Power Law 18 1.47 Exponent = 0.1 Worst Net Evap.,

NetEvap_0.2 Wind Power Law 18 1.45 Exponent= 0.2

1) Determined from initial lake elevation of 689.98-ft.

(_ .________________________P_R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3-33___ 29_1_________________________11

/ CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 33 I

\

7.2 Compliance with Acceptance Criteria 7 .2. l Acceptance Criterion # l - Peak Temperature - Acceptance Criterion # l is met provided the plant is operated and monitored and maintain UHS temperatures below the applicable limits per the results listed in Section 7.1.2 (Rev. 4), Section 7 .l.3 (Rev. 5 and 6), or Section 7.1.4 (Rev. 7).

For Rev. 8, Acceptance Criterion #1 is met as the UHS temperature remains below 107°F for all worst weather cases as shown in Section 7. l. 5.

7.2.2 Acceptance Criterion #2 - UHS Inventory - The maximum expected lake drawdown, with no loss of inventory due to spent fuel pool makeup, is given in Section 7.1.8 . This will be used in calculation L-001355 [Ref. 5.13].

7.2.3 Other The following table lists the cases that were run with the updated software prior to performing calculations for Revision 5. This was done to verify the results that were obtained in the original calculations were obtained again with the updated software. LAKET output for the verification cases is provided in Attachment H.

Verification Original Calculation Results with Most Case Revision Results Current Software C.

(Plant Inlet Temp, °F) (Plant Inlet Temp, °F)

COOe Revision 3 99.95 99.95 C06e Revision 3 99.97 99.96 C18e Revision 3 99.97 99.96 C0609 Revision 4 99.94 99.98 Note: Revisions 6 through 8 utilized the same version of LAKET [Ref. 5. ld] as Revision 5.

7.3 Tables

Table 6.1: Determination of UHS Area-Capacity Profiles

Table 7.1: UHS Area-Capacity Inputs for LAKET-PC

Table 7.2: Plant Temperature Rise

Table 7.3: Maximum Allowable Initial Lake Temperatures

Table 07.l: Plant Temperature Rise

Table G7.2: Cumulative Sununary for Case I - O" Sediment, 09:00 start time

Table G7.3: Cumulative Summary for Case 2 - 6" Sediment, 09:00 start time

Table G7.4: Cumulative Summary for Case 3 - 18" Sediment, 09:00 start time

Table G7.5: Cumulative Summary for Case 4- 18" Sediment, 06:00 start time

Table H7.0: Overall Summary of Cases and Results

Table H7. l: Cumulative Summary for Case la - O" Sediment, 09:00 Start, 1/30 Weather Data

Table H7 .2: Cumulative Summary for Case lb- O" Sediment, 09:00 Start, 5/1/30 Weather Data

Table H7.3 : Cumulative Summary for Case lc -0" Sediment, 12:00 Start, Worst 30-day Evap. Data I

Table H7.4: Cumulative Summary for Case 2a- 6" Sediment, 09:00 Start, 1/30 Weather Data

(

P_R_o_J_E_c_r_N_ o_._11_3_3_3-_29_1__________________________11

\

/ CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 34

(

Table H7.5: Cumulative Summary for Case 2b- 6" Sediment, 09:00 Start, 5/1/30 Weather Data

Table H7.6: Cumulative Summary for Case 2c -6" Sediment, 12:00 Start, Worst 30-day Evap. Data

Table H7.7: Cumulative Summary for Case 3a- 18" Sediment, 09:00 Start, 1/30 Weather Data

Table H7.8: Cumulative Summary for Case 3b-18" Sediment, 09:00 Start, 5/1/30 Weather Data

Table H7.9: Cumulative Summary for Case 3c-18" Sediment, 12:00 Start, Worst 30-day Evap. Data

Table H7.10: Cumulative Summary for Case 4a- 12" Sediment, 09:00 Start, l/30 Weather Data

Table H7. l 1: Cumulative Summary for Case 4b- 12" Sediment, 09:00 Start, 5/1/30 Weather Data

Table H7.12: Cumulative Summary for Case 4c - 12" Sediment, 12:00 Start, Worst 30-day Evap.

Data

Table H7.13: Table of Outlet Files Revision 7

Table 12.1: Initial Lake Level

Table 12.2: List of LAKET Cases

Table 16.1: LAKET Files

Table 17.la: MUR PU (3559 MW1) Overall Summary for Maximum Temperature

Table 17.lb: EPU (4067 MW 1) Overall Summary for Maximum Temperature

Table 17.2a: MUR PU Overall Summary for Maximum Evaporation

Table 17.2b : EPU Overall Summary for Maximum Evaporation Revision 8

Table N6-4: Calculation of Upper Layer Depth c

Table 02-1: Initial Lake Level

Table 02-2: List of LAKET Cases

Table 04-1 : Proposed TS Limits

Table 06-1 : UHS Transit Time Calculation

Table 06-2: Worst Weather Periods - l 10°F Initial Temperature

Table 06-3: Worst Weather Periods - 120°F Initial Temperature

Table 06-4: Worst Weather - 9 Hour and 12 Hour Period

Table 06-5: Worst Weather Files

Table 06-6: Worst Weather Comparison

Table 06-7: 33-24-30 Case Weather Files

Table 06-8: 33-24-30 Case Comparison

Table 06-9: Worst Temperature Cases

Table 06-10: Worst Net Evaporation Cases

Table 06-1 l : Wind Sensitivity Runs

Table 06-12 : UHS Drawdown Curves for Mixing Zone Sensitivity Runs

Table 06-13: UHS Mixing Sensitivity Runs 7.4 Figures

Figure 7.1 : Limiting Lake Temperatures vs. Time of Day

Figure 7.2 : Case 0009: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Updated Worst 36-Day Temperature Period

Figure 7.3 : Case 0009: UHS LOCA Drawdown, First 30 Days of Updated Worst 36-Day Temp. Period

Figure 7.4: Case OOe: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Updated Worst 30-Day Evaporation Period

Figure 7.5: Case OOe: VHS LOCA Drawdown, Updated Worst 30-Day Evaporation Period

Figure 7.6: Case 0609: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Updated Worst 36-Day Temperature Period

Figure 7.7 : Case 0609: VHS LOCA Drawdown, First 30 Days of Updated Worst 36-Day Temp. Period I

I PROJECT NO. 11333-297 1

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 35

Figure 7.8: Case 06e: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Updated Worst 30-Day Evaporation Period

Figure 7.9: Case06e: UHS LOCA Drawdown Updated Worst 30 Day Evaporation Period

Figure 7.10: Case 1809: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Updated Worst 36-Day Temperature Period

Figure 7.11: Case 1809: UHS LOCA Drawdown, First 30 Days of Updated Worst 36-Day Temp. Period

Figure 7.12: Case 18e: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Updated Worst 30-Day Evaporation Period

Figure 7.13: Case 18e: UHS LOCA Drawdown, Updated Worst 30-Day Evaporation Period

+ Figure 7.14: UHS Heat Load Following LOCA

Figure G7 .1: UHS Outlet Temperature vs. Days After SCRAM

Figure G7.2: UHS Inlet Temperature vs. Days After SCRAM

Figure G7 .3: Limiting Lake Temperatures vs. Time of Day - Recreation of Figure 7. l from main body of calculation

figure H7.1: 1/30 Plant Inlet Temperature vs. Day

Figure H7.2: 1/30 Plant Outlet Temperature vs. Day

Figure H7.3: 5/1/30 Plant Inlet Temperature vs. Day

Figure H7.4 5/1/30 Plant Outlet Temperature vs. Day

Figure H7.5: Case 3a: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Worst 31-Day Temperature Period

Figure H7.6: Case 3b: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Worst 36-Day Temperature Period

Figure H7.7 : Case 3c: UHS LOCA Drawdown, Worst 30-Day Evaporation Weather Period Revision 7

Figure 17 .1: Plant Outlet Temperature (MUR PU) c

Figure 17.2: Plant Outlet Temperature (EPU)

Figure 17.3: Plant Inlet Temperature (MUR PU)

Figure 17.4: Plant Outlet Temperature (EPU)

Figure 17.5: Case 3a_MUR: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Worst 31-Day Temperature Period

Figure 17.6: Case 4a_MUR: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Worst 31-Day Temperature Period

Figure I7.7 : Case 3a: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Worst 31-Day Temperature Period

Figure 17.8: Case 4a: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Worst 31-Day Temperature Period

Figure 17.9: Case lc_MUR: UHS LOCA Drawdown, Worst 30-Day Evaporation Weather Period

Figure 17.10: Case le: UHS LOCA Drawdown, Worst 30-Day Evaporation Weather Period Revision 8

Figure 02.1: Existing UHS Model

Figure 02.2: Modified UHS Model for Mixing Effects

Figure 02.3: MIT Report 161 [Ref. 05.7] Two Stage Pond

Figure 07.1: Case 3a_6AM: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient, Worst 33-Day Temperature Period

Figure 07.2: Case le: UHS LOCA Drawdown, Worst 30 Day Evaporation Weather Period

Figure 08.2-1 : Five Day Temperature Profile for the 10% Mixing Case

Figure 08.2-2 : Five Day Temperature Profile for the 20% Mixing Case

Figure 08.2-3: Plant Inlet Temperature for 6AM Cases

Figure 08.2-4: Case Mixing - 10% - 9AM Results

Figure 08.2-5: Case Mixing - 20% - 12PM Results 7.5 Recommendations None.

P-R_o_J_E_c_r_N_o_._11_3-33___ 29_1_________________________11

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 36 Table 6.1:*Deterrmnation oflJHS Area- Capacity Profiles (1 ofl)

With No Sediment with 0.5 feet of Sediment Surface Incremental Total Surface Incremental

Total Elevation Slice Area Volume Volume Elevation Slice Area Volume Volume (feet) Number (acres) (acre-feet (acre*feet} (feet) Number (acres) (acre-feet) . (acre-feet) 0.5000 0.5000 675 15.

0.0078 0.03

- 675.500 15 0.0076 0.03 678 0.0640 0.03 678.500 0.0640 0.03*

14 0.12 14 0.12 en 0.1857 0.15 en.soo 0.1857 0.15 13 0.25 13 0.25 678 0.3263 0.40 678.500 0.328 0.40 12 0.33 12 0.33 12 (Adj) 3.4397 2.27. 12 (AdJ> 3.44 .2.27 12 (Adj) 1.ee 12(Adj) 1.68 679 . 5.1493 4.66 679.500 5.15 4.68 11 5.73 11 5.73 680 . 6.3270 10.39 680.500 6.33 10.39 10 7.20 10 7.20 681 8.1173 17.59 681.500 8.12 17.58 9 8.91 9 8.91 682 9.7301 26.50 682.500 9.73 26.50 8 10.89 8 10.89 683 12.0857 37.39 683.500 12.09 37.39 7 13.40 7 13.40 14.7500 S0.79 684.500 14.75 50.79 c

684 8 21 .79 8 21.79 6 (Adj) -0.84 6 (Adj) -0.84 685 29.6984 71.74 (0.6)(8) 9.18

5. 29.70 685.000 22.22 59.87 5 (Adj) 32.3376 21.67 6&8 27.78 5 (Adj) 19.54 685.500 29.70 71.74 688 77.3331 142.64 5 29.70 4 78.15 5 (Adj) 32.34 21.87 687 78.9604 220.79 5 (Adj) 19;54 3 79.75 686.000 . 29.70 102.18 688 80,5479 300.54 4&1 53.72 2 81.35 688.500 77.33 142.64 689 82.1518 38U9 4 78.15 1 82.99 687.000 78.11 181.84 690 63.8297 464.88 3&* 78.88 687.500 78.96 220.79

3 79.75 688.000' 79.75 260.78 2&3 80.55 688.500 80.55 300.54 2 81.35 689.000 81.35 341.34 1&2 82.18 689.500 82.15 381.89 1 . 82.99 690.000 82.98 423.!0 690.500 83.83 464.88 PROJECT NO. 11333-297

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 37 Table 6.1: Determlna~on of UBS Area- Capacity ProOJC!S (2 of 2) with 1 feet of Sediment

with 1.5 feet of S edlment

Surface Incremental Total Surface Incremental Total Elevation Slice Area Volume Volume Elevation S&ce Area Volume Volume (feet} Number (ecree) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (feet) Number (ecres) . (eete-feet) (acre-feet) 0.5000 ..

0.5000 676 0.0076 0.03 676.500 15 0.0076 0.03 15 677 .. 0.0640 0.03 677.500 0.0640 0.03 14 0.12 14 0.12 678 0.1857 0.15 678.500 0.1857 0.15 13 0.25 13 0.25 679 0.3263 . 0.40 679.500 0.3263 0.40 12 0.33 12 *. 0.33 12(Adj) 3.4397 2.21 12 (Adj) 3.4397 2.27 12(AdJ) 1.66 12 (Adj) 1.ee 680 5.1493 . 4.66 680.500 5.1493 4.ee 11 5.73 11 5.73 681 6.3270 . 10.39 681.500 6.3270 10.39 10 7.20 10 7.20 682 8.1i73 17.60 682.500 8.1173 17.59 9 8.91 9. 8.91 683 9.7301 26.51 683.500 9.7301 26.50 8 10.89 8 10.88 684 12.0857 37.39 684.500 12.0857 37.39 7 13.40 7 13.40 685 14.7500 50.79 (0.fi){7) . 6.37 8 21.79 6H.OOO 13.42 43.78 6 (Adj) -0.84 6&7 16.22 688 29.6984 71.74 685.500 14.7500 . 50.79 s 29.70 6 21.79 S (Adj) 32.3376 *21 .67 6 (Adi) -0.84 5(Adj) 19.54 686.000 22.22 69.98 687 77.3331 142.65 5&8 27.78 4 78.15 686.500 29.6984 71.74 688 78.9604 220.79 s . 29.70 3 79.75 5 (Adj) 32.34 21.67 689 80.5479 300.55 5(Adj) 19.54 2 81.35 687.000 29.70 102.19 690 82.1516 381 .89 4&5 53.72 687.500 77.3331 142.64 .

4 78.15 686.000 78.1& 181.81 3&4 78.98 688.500 78.9604 220.79 3 79.75 689.000 79.78 260.81 2&3 80.55 689.500 80.5479 300.54 2 81.35 690.000 81.315 341.38 690.500 82.1516 381.89 PROJECT NO. 11333-297

n CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 38 Table 7.1 - UHS Area-Capacity Inputs for LAKET-PC With No Sediment I With 0.5 feet of Sediment With 1.0 feet of Sediment With 1.5 feet of Sediment I ISurface Area

__j Elevation I Surface Areal Volume Surface Area Volume I Surface Area Volume Volume (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acres) (acre-feet)

- ----- J

---685- ! _J 13.42 43.8 29.70 71 .7 22.22 60.0 14.75 50.8 686 77.33 142.6 29.70 102.2 29.70 71.7 22 .22 60.0 687 l__78.96 L 220.8 _J 78.15 181 .8 I 77 .33 142.6 29 .70 102.2

,_I I I 688 80.55 300.5 79.75 260.8 78.96 220.8 78 .15 181 .9 82.15 381 .9 81 .35 341.4 80.55 300.5 79 .75 260.8 689 I I 381 .9 81 .35 341.4

~*

690 83 .83 464 .9 82.99 423.5 82.15 PROJECT NO. 11333-297

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 39 Table 7.2 - Plant Temperature Rise <1 of 6>

CSCS Flowrate 86 cf& Mass Flow 19,201,392 lbmltl' Densltv 62.02 l>m/ft3 CD 1 Btu/lbm/F Plant Starting Encfmg Heat Rate Heat Added Total Heat Generated Sensible Temperature Time *Time per Tlmestep In Tlme&tep Added Heat Added Heat Added Rise (hr) (hr) (BTUJhr) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU) _(BTU)

(Dea F) 0 3 35.26 6.77E+08 2.03E+09

2.03E+09 1.42E~09 6.09E+08 3 6 28.79 5.53E+08 1.66E+09 3.69E+09 2.47E+09 1.22E+09 6 9 16.68 3.20E+08 9.61E+08 4.65E+09 3.43E+09 1.22E+09 9 12 16.28 3.13E+08 9.38E+08 5.59E+09 4.37E+09 1.22E+09 12 15 15.32 2.94E+08 8.83E+08 6.47E+09 5.25E+09 1.22E+09 1S 18 14.97 2.87E+08 8.62E+08 7.33E+09 6.11 E+09 1.22E+09 18 21 14.53 2.79E+08 8.37E+08 8.17E+09 6.95E*09 1.22E+09 21 24 14.29 2.74E+08 8.23E+08 8.99E+09 7.77E+09 1.22E+09 24 27 13.88 2.67E+08 8.00E+08 9.79E+09 8.57E+09 1.22E+09 27 30 13.45 2.58£+08 7.75E+08 1.06E+10 9.35E+09 1.22E+09 30 33 13.30 2.55E+08 7.66E+08 1.13E+10 . 1.01 E+10 1.22E+08 33 36 13.30 2.55E+08 7.66E+08 1.21E+10 1.09E+10

1.22E+09 36 39 13.30 2.55£+08 7.66E+08 1.29E+10 1.16E+10 1.22E+09 39 . 42 13.24 2.54E+08 7.62E+08 1.36E+10 1.24E+10 1.22E+09 42 45 12.73 2.44E+08 7.33E+08 1..44E+10 1.31 E+10 1.22E+09 45 48 12.73 2.44E+08 7.33E+08 1.51E+10 1.39E+10 1.22E+09 48 51 12.57 2.41E+08 7.24E+08 1.58E+10 1.46E+10 1.22E+09 c

51 54 12.43 2.39E+08 7.16E+08 1.65E+10 1.53E+10 1.22E+09 54 57 12.24 2.35E+08 7.05E+08 1.72E+10 1.60E+10 1.22E+09 57 60 12.02 2.31E+08 6.93E+08 1.79E+10 1.67E+10 1.22E+08 60 63 12.02 2.31E+08 6.93E+08 1.B6E+10 1.74E+10 1.22E+08 63 66 12.02 2.31E+08 6.93E+08 1.93E+10 1.81 E+10 1.22E+OS 66 69 12.02 2.31E+08 6.93E+08 2.00E+10 1.88E+10 1.22E+OS 69 72 12.01 2.31E+08 6.92E+08 2.07E+10 1.95E+10 1.22E+08 72 75 11.49 2.21E-+08 6.62E+08 2.14E+10 2.01 E+10 1.22E+09 75 78 11.49 2.21E*08 6.62E+08 2.20E+10 2.08E+10 1.22E+09 .

78 81 11.49 2.21E+08 6.62E+08 2.27E+10 2.15E+10 1.22E+09 81 84. ... 11.49 2.21E+08 6.62E+08 2.33E+10 2.21 E+10 1.22E+09 M 87 11.49 2.21E+08 6.62E+08 2.40E+10 2.28E+10 1.22E+OS 87 90 11.49 2.21E+08 6.62E+08 2.47E+10 2.35E+10 , 1.22E+09 90 93 11.49 2.21E+08 6.62E+08 2.53E+10 2.41 E+10 1.22E+09 93 96 11.49 2.21E+08 6.62E+08 2.60E+10 2.48E+10 1.22E+09 98 99 11.09 2.13E+08 6.39E+08 2.66E+10 2.54E+10 1.22E+09 99 102 11.07 2.13E+08 6.38E+08 2.73E+10 2.61 E+10 1.22E+09 102 105 11.07 2.13E+08 6.38E+08 2.79E-+10 2.67E+10 1.22E+OS 105 108 11.07 2.13E+08 6.38E+08 2.85E-+10 2.73E+10 1.22E+09 108 111 11.07 2.13E+08 6.38E+08 2.92E+10 2.80E+10 1.22E+09 111 . 114 10.87 2.09E+08 6.26E+08 2.98E+10 2.86E+10 1.22E+09 114 117 10.86 2.09£+08 626E+08 3.04E+10 2.92E+10 1.22E.. 09 117 120 10.86 2.09E+08 6.26E+08 3.11 E+10 2.98E+10 1.22E+09 120 123 10.50 2.02E+08 6.05E+08 3.17E+10 3.04E+10 1.22E.. 09 123 126 10.SO 2.02E+08 6.DSE+OB 3.23E+10 3.11E+10 1.22E+09 126 129 10.50 2.02E+08 6.05E+08 3.29E+10 3.17E+10 1.22E+09 129 132 10.50 2.02E+08 6.05E+08 3.35E+10 3.23E+10 1.22E+09 132 135 10.50 2.02E+08 6.05E+08 3.41E+10 3.29E+10 1.22E+09 135 138 10.50 2.02E+08 6.05E+08 3.47E+10 3.35E+10 1.22E+09 138 141 10.50 2.02E+08 6.05E+08 3.53E+10 . 3.41 E+10 1.22E+09 Note: Thl.s table represents historical input for the Rev. 3 analYi is and earlier. Rev. 4 and Rev. S analys es are based on plant temperature rise data presented in Attachment G.

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 40 Table 7.2 *Plant Temperature Kise (2 of 6}

Plant Heat Rate Hea1Added Total Heat Generated Sensible S1arting Ending Temperature Time Time per Timestep in Timestep Added Heat Added Heat Added Rise (hr) (hr) (BTU/hr) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU) *

(Ceg Fl 141 144 10.50 2.02E+08 6.05E+08 3.S9E+10 3.47E+10 1.22E+09 144 147 10.50 2.02E+08 6.0SE+08 3.65E+10 3.53E+10 1.22E+09 .

147 150 10.50 2.02E+08 6.0SE+08 3.71E+10 3.59E+10 . 1.22E+09 150 . 153 10.50 2.02E+08

6.05E+08 3.77E+10 3.65E+10 1.22E+09 153 156 10.SO 2.02E+08 6.05E+08 3.831;+10 3.71 E+10 1.22E+09 156 159 10.SO 2.02E+D8 6.0SE+08 3.89E+10 3.77E+10 1.22E+09 159 162 10.SO 2.02E+D8 6.0SE+08 3.95E+10 3.83E+10 1.22E+09 162 165 10.SO 2.02E+08 6.05E+08 4.01E+10 3.89E+10 1.22E+09 165 168 10.27 1.97E+08 . 5.92E+08 4'.07E+10 3.95E+10 1.22E+09 168 171 9.99 1.92E+08 5.7SE+08 4.13E+10 4.01 E+10 1.22E+09 171 174 9.99 1.92E+08 S.7SE+08 4.19E+10 4.07E+10 1.22E+09 174 177 9.99 1.92E+08 5.75E+08 4.25E+10 4.12E+10 1.22E+09 177 180 9.99 1.92E+08 5.75E+08 4.30E+10 4.18E+10 1.22E+08 180 183 9.99 1.92E+08 S.75E+Da 4.36E+10 4.24E+10 1.22E+09 183 186 9.99 1.92E+08 5.7SE+08 4.<t2E+10 4.30E+10 1.22E+09 186 189 9.99 1.92E+08 5.75E+08 4.48E+10 4.35E+10 1.22E+09 189 192 9.99 1.92E+08 S.7SE+08 4.53E+10 4.41 E+10 1.22E+09 192 195 9.99 1.92E+08 5.75E+08 4.59E+10 4.47E+10 1.22E+09 195 198 9.99 1.92E+08 S.7SE+08 4.65E+10 4 .53E+10 1.22E+09 198 201 9.99 1.92E+08 5.75E+08 4.71E+10 4.58E+10 1.22E+09 201 204 9.99 1.92E+08 5.7SE+08 4.76E+10 4 .64E+10 1.22E+09 204 207 9.99 1.92E+08 5.7SE+08 4.82E+10 4.70E+10 1.22E+09 207 210 9.99 1.92E+08 5.7SE+08 4.88E+10 4.76E+10 1.22E+09 210 213 9.99 1.92E+08 5.75E+08 4.94E+10 4.81 E+10 1.22E+09 .

213 216 9.99 1.92E+08 5.7SE+08 <t.99E+10 4 .87E+10 1.22E+09 216 219 9.99 1.92E+08 5.75E+08 5.05E+10 4 .93E+10 1.22E+09 219 222 9.99 1.92E+08 5.75E+08 5.11E+10 4.99E+10 1.22E+08 222 225 9.72 1.87E+08 5.60E+08 5.16E+10 5.04E+10 1.22E+09 225 228 9;70 1.86E+08 5.59E+08 5.22E+10 5.10E+10 1.22E+09 228 231 9.70 1.86E+08 5.59E+08 5.28E+10 5.1SE+10 1.22E+09 231 234 9.70 1.86E+08 5.59E+08 5.33E+10 . 5.21 E+10 1.22E+09 234 237 9.70 1.86E+08 5.S9E+08 5.39E+10 5.27E+10 1.22E+08 237 240 9.70 1.86E+08 5.59E+08 5..44E+10 5.32E+10 1.22E+08 240 243 9.54 1.83E+08 5.50E+08 5.50E+10 5.38E+10 1.22E+09 243 246 9.54 1.83E+08 5.50E+08 5.55E+10 5.43E+10 1.22E+09 246 249 9.54 1.83E+08 5.SOE+08 5.61E+10- 5.49E+10 1.22E+09 249 252 9.54 1.83E+08 S.50E+08 5.66E:+10 5.S4E+10 1.22E+08 252 255 9.54 1.83E+08 5.SOE+08 5.72E+10. 5.60E+10 1.22E+09 255 258 9.54 1.83E+08 5.50E+08 5.77E+10 5.6SE+1"0 1.22E+09 258 261 9.54 1.83E+08 5.50E+08 5.83E+10 5.71 E+10 1.22E+09 261 264 9.54 1.83E+08 5.!>0E+08 S.88E+10 5.76E+10 1.22E+08 264 267 9.54 1.83E+08 5.50E+08 5.94E+10 5.82E+10 1.22E+09 267 270 9.54 1.83E+08 5.!>0E+08 5.99E+10 5.87E+10 1.22E+09 270 273 9.54 1.83E+08 5.50E+08 6.05E+10 5.93E+10 1.22E+08 273 276 9.54 1.83E+08 5.50E+08 6.10E+10 5.98E+10 1.22E+09 276 279 9.40 1.80E+08 5.41E+08 6.16E+10 6.04E+10 1.22E+09 279 282 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.21E+10 6.09E+10 1.22E+09 282 285 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29£+08 6.26E+10 6.14E+10 1.22E+09 285 288 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.32E+10 6.19E+10 1.22E+09 Note: This table represents historical input for the Rev. J analysis and earlier. Rev. 4 and Rev. 5 analyses are based on plant temperature rise data presented in AttachmC'.nl G.

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 41 I

Table 7.2 - Plant Temperature Rise (3 of 6)

\

Plant Starting Ending Heat Rate Heat Added Total Heat Generated Sensible Time nme Temperature Rise per Tlmestep In Timestep Added Heat Added Heat Added (hr) (hr) (BTU/hr) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU)

(Deg F) 288 291 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.37E+10 6.25E+10 1.22E+09 291 294 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.42E+10 6.30E+10 1.22E+09 294 297 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.0E+10 6.35E+10 1.22E+09

.297 300 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.53E+10 6.41 E+10 1.22E+09 300 303 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.5BE+10 6.46E+10 1.22E+09 303 306 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.63E+10 6.51 E+10 1.22E+09 306 309 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.69E+10 6.57E+10 1.22E+09 309 312 9.19 1.76E+08 . 5.29E+08 6.74E+10 6.62E+10 1.22E+09 312 315 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.79E+10 6.67E+10 1.22E+09

315 318 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.85E+10 6.72E+10 1.22E+09 318 321 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.90E+10 6.78E+10 1.22E+09 321 324 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 6.95E+10 6.83E+10 1.22E+09 324 327 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.00E+10 6.88E+10 1.22E+09 327 330 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.06E+10 6.94E+10 1.22E+09 330 333 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.11E+10 6.99E+10 1.22E+09 333 336 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.16E+10 7.04E+10 1.22E+09 338 339 9.19 1.76E*08 5.29E+OB 7.22E*10 7.09E+10 1.22E*09 339 342 9.19 1.76E-+08 5.29E+08 7.27E+10 7.15E+10 1.22E*09 342 345 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.32E+10 7.20E+10 1.22E-+09 345 348 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.37E+10 7.25E+10 1.22E+09 348 351 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.43E+10 7.31 E+10 1.22E+09 351 354 9.19 1.76E*08 5.29E+08 7.48E+10 7.36E+10 1.22E+09 354 357 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.53E+10 7.41 E+10 1.22E+09 357 360 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+OB 7.59E+10 7.46E+10 1.22E+09 360 363 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.&4E+10 7.52E+10 1.22E+09 363 366 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.69E+10 7.57E+10 1.22E+09 366 369 9.19 1.76E+Oe 5.29E+08 7.75E+10 7.62E+10 1.22E+09 369 372 9.19 1.76E*08 5.29E+08 7.80E+10 7.68E+10 1.22E+09 372 375 9.19 1.76E*08 5.29E+08 7.85E+10 7.73E+10 1.22E+09 375 378 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+OB 7.90E+10 7.78E+10 1.22E+09 378 381 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 7.96E+10 7.84E+10 1.22E+09 381 384 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.01E+10 7.89E+10 1.22E+09 384 387 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.06E+10 7.94E+10 1.22E+09 387 390 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.12E+10 7.99E+10 1.22E+09 390 393 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.17E+10 8.05E+10 1.22E+09 393 396 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.22E+10 8.10E+10 1.22E+09 396 399 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.27E+10 8.15E+10 1.22E+09

' 399 402 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.33E+10 8.21 E+10 1.22E+08 402 405 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.38E+10 8.26E+10 1.22E+08 405 408 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.43E+10 8.31 E+10 1.22E+09 408 411 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.4'9E+10 8.36E+10 1.22E+08 411 414 9.19 1.76E+08 5.29E+08 8.54E+10 8.42E+10 1.22E+09 414 417 9.15 1.76E+08 5.27E+08 8.59E+10 8.47E+10 1.22E+09 417 420 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 8.64E+10 8.52E+10 1.22E+09 420 423 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 8.69E+10 8.57E+10 1.22E+OS 423 426 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 8.74E+10 8.62E+10 1.22E+OS 426 429 8.85 1.70E+.08 5.10E+08 8.80E+10 8.67E+10 1.22E+09 429 432 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E*08 8.85E+10 8.72E+10 1.22E+09 432 435 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E*08 8.90E+10 8.78E+10 1.22E+09

( Note: This table represents historical input for the Rev. 3 analysis and earlier. Rev. 4 and Rev. S analyses are

....... .. based on plant temperature rise data presented in Attachment G.

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 42 Table 7.2 - Plant Temperature Rise (4 of 6)

Plant Starting Ending Heat Rate Heat Added Total Heat Generated Sensible Temperature Time Time per Tlmestep In Tlmestep Added Heat Added Heat Added Rise (hr} (hr) (BTU/hr) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU)

(Deg Fl 435 438 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 8.95E+10 8.83E+10 122E+09 438 441 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 9.00E+10 8.88E+10 1.22E+09 441 444 8.85 1.70E+08 . 5.10E+08 9.05E+10 8.93E+10 1.22E+09 444 447 8.85 1.70E*08 . 5.10E*08 9.10E+10 8.98E+10 1.22E+09 447 450 8.85 1.70£*08 5.10E+08 9.15E+10 9.03E+10 1.22E+09 450 453 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 9.20E+10 9.08E+10 1.22E+09 453 458 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 9.25E+10 9.13E+10 1.22E+09 456 459 8.85 1.70E+0.8 5.10E+08 9.31E+10 9.18E+10 1.22E+09 459 462 8.85 1.70£+08 5.10E+08 9.36E+10 9.23E+10 1.22E+09 462 465 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 9.41E+10 9.29E+10 1.22E+09 465 468 8.85 1.70E+08 5.tOE+08 9.46E+10 9.34E+10 1.22E+09 468 471 8.85 1.70E*08 5.10E+08 9.51E+10 9.39E+10 1.22E-+09 471 474 8.85 1.70E*08 5.10E*08 9.5EiE+10 9.44E+10 1.22E+09 474 477 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 9.61E+10 9:49E+10 1.22E+09 477 480 8.85 1.70E+08 5.10E+08 9.66E+10 9.54E+10 1.22E+09 480 483 8.72 1.68E+08 5.03E+08 9.71E+10 9.59E+10 1.22E+09 483 486 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 9.76E+10 9.64E+10 1.22E+09 486 489 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 9.81E+10 9.69E+10 1.22E+09 489 492 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 9.86E+10 9.74E+10 1.22E+09 492 495 8.70 1.67E*08 5.01E+08 9.91E+10 9.79E+10 1.22E+09 5.01E+08 c

495 498 8.70 1.67E+08 9.96E+10 9.84E+10 1.22E+09

"'98 501 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.00E+11 9.89E+10 1.22E+09 501 504 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.01E+11 9.94E+10 1.22E+09 504 507 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.01E+11 9.99E+10 1.22E+09 507 510 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.02E+11 1.00E+11 1.22E+09 510 513 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.02E+11 1.01 E+11 1.22E+09 513 516 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.03E+11 1.01 E+11 1.22E+09 516 519 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.03E+11 1.02E+11 1.22E+09 519 522 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.04E+11 1.02E+11 1.22E+09 522 525 8.70 t.67E+08 . ... !>,P1E+08 1.04E+11 1.03E+11 1.22E+09 525 528 8.70 1.67E+OB 5.01E+08 1.05E+11 1.03E+11 1.22E+09 528 531 8.70 1.67E+08 !>.01E+08 1.05E+11 1.04E+11 1.22E+09 531 53-C 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.06E+11 1.04E+11 1.22E+09 534 537 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.06E+11 1.05E+11 1.22E+09 537 540 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+D8 1.07E+11 1.05E+11 1.22E+09 540 543 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.07E+11 1.06E+11 1.22E+09 543 546 8.70 1.67E+08

5.01E+08 1.08E+11 1.06E+11 1.22E+09 546 549 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.08E+11 1.07E+11 1.22E+09 549 552 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.09E+11 1.07E+11 1.22E+09 552 555 8.70 1.67E+08 5.01E+08 1.09E+11 1.08E+11 1.22E+09 555 558 8.52 1.6'CE+08 4.91E+08 1.10E+11 1.0BE+11 1.22E+09 558 561 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.10E+11 1.09E+11 1.22E+09 561 564 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.11E+11 1.09E+11 1.22E+09 564 567 8.49 1.63E+08 4.S9E-+08 1.11E+11 1.10E+11 1.22E+09 567 570 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.12E+11 1.1 OE+11 1.22E+09 570 573 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.12E+11 1.11E+11 1.22E+09 573 576 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.13E+11 1.11E+11 1.22E+09 576 579 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.13E+11 1.12E+11 1.22E+09 579 582 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.14E+11 1.12E+11 1.22E+09 Note: This table represents historical input for the Rev. 3 analysis and earlier. Rev. 4 and Rev. 5 analyses are i based on plant temperature rise data presented in Attachment G.

\

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 43 Table 7.2 - Plant Temperature Rise (5 of 6)

(

Plant Starting Ending Heat Rate Heat Added Total Heat Generated Sensible Temperature Time Time per Times1ep inTlmestep Added Heat Added Heat Added Rise (hr) (hr) (BTU/hr) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU)

(Oeg Fl 582 585 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.14E+11 1.13E+11 1.22E+09 585 588 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.15E+11 1.13E+11 1.22E+09 588 591 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.15E+11 1.14E+11 1.22E+09 591 59' 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.16E+11 1.14E+11 1.22E+09 594 597 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.16E+11 1.15E+11 1.22E+09 597 600 8.49 1.63E+08 4 .89E+08 1.16E+11 1.15E+11 1.22E+09 600 603 8.48 1.63E+OB 4.89E+08 1.17E+11 1.16E+11 1.22E+09 603 606 8.48 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.17E+11 1.16E+11 1.22E+09 608 609 8.48 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.18E+11 1.17E+11 1.22E+08

609 612 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.18E+11 1.17E+11 1.22E+08 612 615 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.19E+11 1.18E+11 1.22E+09 615 618 8.49 1.63E+08 4 .89E+08 1.19E+11 1.18E+11 1.22E+09 618 621 8.49 1.63E+08 "4 .89E+08 1.20E+11

1.19E+11 1.22E+09 621 624 8.49 1.63E+08 4 .89E+08 1.2DE+11 1.19E+11 . 1.22E+09 624 627 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.21E+11 1.20E+11 1.22E+09 627 630 8.49 1.63E+08 <4.89E+08 1.21E+11 1.20E+11 1.22E+09 630 633 8.49 1.63E+08 "4.89E*08 1.22E+11 1.21 E+11 1.22E+09 633 636 8.<G9 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.22E*11 1.21 E+11 1.22E+09 636 639 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E*08 1.23E+11 1.22E+11 1.22E+09 639 642 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.23E+11 1.22E+11 1.22E+09 c

642 645 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.24E+11 1.23E+11 1.22E+09 645 648 8.48 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 124E*11 1.23E+11 1.22E+09 648 651 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.25E+1t 1.24E+11 1.22E+09 651 654 8.49 1.63E+08 . 4 .89E+08 1.25E+11 1.24E+11 1.22E+09 654 657 8.49 1.63E+08 4 .89E+08 1.26E+11 1.25E+11 f.22E+09 657 660 8.49 i .63E+08 4.89E*08 1.26E-+11 1.25E+11 1.22E+08 660 663 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.27E*11 1.26E+11 1.22E+09 663 666 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.27E+11 1.26E+11 1.22E+08 666 669 8.49 i .63E+08 4.89E+08 1.28E+11 1.27E+11 1.22E+08 669 672 .8.49 1.63E+08 4 .89E+08 1.28E+11 1.27E+11 1.22E+08 672 675 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.29E+11 1.27E+11 1.22E+08 675 678 8.49 1.63E+08 4 .89E+08 1.29E+11 1.28E+11 1.22E+09 678 681 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.30E+11 1.28E+11 1.22E*09 681 684 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E*08 1.30E+11 1.29E+11 1.22E+09 684 687 8.49 1.63E+08 4 .89E+08 1.31E+11 1.29E+11 1.22E+09 687 690 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.31 E+11 1.30E+11 1.22E+09 690 693 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.32E+11 1.30E+11 1.22E+09 693 696 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E*08 1.32E+11 1.31 E+11 1.22E+09 696 699 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E*08 1.33E+11 1.31E+11 1.22E*09 699 . 702 . 8.49 1.63E+08 4.B9E+08 1.33E+11 1.32E*t11 122E*09 702 705 8.49 . 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.34E*11 1.32E+11 1.22E+09 705 708 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E*08 1.34E+11 1.33E+11 1.22E*09 708 711 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.35E*11 1.33E+11 1.22E+09 711 714 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E+08 1.35E+11 1.34E+11 1.22E+09 714 717 8.49 1.63E+08 4.89E*08 1.36£+11 1.34E+11 1.22E+09 717 720 8.44 1.62E+08 4.86E*08 1.36E+11 1.35E+11 1.22E+09 720 723 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.37E+11 1.35E+11 1.22E+09 723 726 8.22 1.58E+08

4.73E+08 1.37E+11 1.36E+11 1.22E+09 726

729 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.37E+11 1.36E+11 *1.22E+09 Note: This table represents histoncal input for the Rev. 3 analysis and earlier. Rev. 4 and Rev. S analyses are based on planr remperature rise dara presented in Attachment G.

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 44 Table 7.2 - Plant Temperature Rise (6 of 6)

(

Plant

_Starting Ending Heat Rate Heat Added Total Heat Generated Sensible Temperature Time Time per Timestep in Timestep Added Heat Added Heat Added .

Rise (hr) (hr) (BTU/hr) . (BTU) (BTU) (BTU) (BTU)

(Deg F)

/29 732 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.38E+11 1.37£+11 1.22E+09 732 735 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.38E+11 1.37E+11 1.22E+09 735 738 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.39E+11 1.38E+11 . 1.22E+09 738 741 8.22 1.58E+08

4.73E+08 1.39E+11 1.38E+11 1.22E+09 741 744 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.40E+11 1.39E+11 1.22E+09 744 747 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.40E+11 1.39E+11 1.22E+09 747 750 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.41E+11 1.40E+11 1.22E+09 750 753 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.41E+11 1.40E+11 1.22E+09 753 756 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.42E+11 1.40E+11 1.22E+09 756 759 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.42E+11 1.41E+11 1.22E+09 759 762 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.43E+11 U1E+11 1.22E+09 762 765 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08

1.43E+11 1.42E+11 1.22E+09 765 768 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.44E+11 1.42E+11 1.22E+09 768 771 8.22 1.58E+*os 4.73E+08 1.44E+11 1.43E+11 1.22E+09 771 774 8.22 1.!>8E+08 4.73E+08 1.45E+11 1.43E+11 1.22E+09 774 777 . 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.45E+11 1.44E+11 1.22E+09 777 780 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.46E+11 1.44E+11 1.22E+09 780 783 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.46E+11 1.45E+11 1.22E+09 783 786 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.46E+11 1.45E+11 1.22E+09 786 789 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.47E+11 1.46E+11 1.22E+09 c

789 792 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.47E+11 1.46E+11 1.22E+09 792 795 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.48E+11 1.47E+11 1.22E+09 795 798 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.48E-+11 1.47E+11 1.22E+09 798 801 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 U9E+11 1.48E+11 1.22E+09 801 804 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.49E+11 1.48E+1 f f.22E+09 804 807 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.50E+11 1.49E+11 1.22E+09 807 810 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.50E+11 1.49E+11 1.22E+09 810 . 813 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.51E+11 1.49E+11 1.22E+09 813 816 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.51E+11 1.50E+11 1.22E+08

.816 819 8.22 . 1.5.aE+08 . 4.73E+08 1.52E+11 1.50E+11 1.22E+08 819 822 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.52E+11 1.51 E+11 1.22E+09 822 825 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.53E+11 1.51E+11 1.22E+09 825 828 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.53E+11 1.52E+11 1.22E+09 828 831 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.54E+11 1.52E+11 1.22E+09 831 834 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.54E+11 1.53E+11 1.22E+09 834 837 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.54E+11 1.53E+11 1.22E+09 837 840 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.55E+11 1.54E+11 1.22E+09 840 843 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.55E+11 1.54E+11 1.22E+09 843 846 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.!>6E+11 1.55E+11 1.22E+09 846 8<49 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.56E+11 t.55E+11 1.22E+09 849 852 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.57E+11 1.56E+11 1.22E+09 8S2 855 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.57E+11 1.56E+11 1.22E+09 855 858 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.58E+11 t.57E+11 1.22E+09 858 861 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.58£+11 1.57E+11 1.22E+09 861 864 8.22 1.58E+08 4.73E+08 1.59E+11 1.58E+11 1.22E+09 36 Dav Avera'1e Heat Load 1.84E+08 Note: This table represents historical input for lhe Rev. 3 analysis and earlier. Rev. 4 and Rev. 5 analyses are

( based on plant temperature rise data presented in Attachment G.

~

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 45 Table 7.3: Maximum Allowabl e Initial lake Tempera tures Maximum Maximum sediment Time of Day Allowable Initial Peak 3~Day Case Limiting Weather Condition Accumulation Start Time Temperalu re Temperature Drawdown 0000 - O.Oft 0:00 100.0°F 100.00°F -

0003 0006

. worst day temperature worst day temperature O.Ofl 3:00 99.3 °F 99.94 °F -

0009 O.Oft 6:00 98.6 "F 99.98 °F -

0009 W01$l day temperature wol'$l 511/30 day temperatures

' O.Oft

0.0ft 9:00 9:00 98.0 "F 100.00°F -

98.0°F 99.94 °F 1.35 ft 0012 worst 5/1/30 day temperatures O.Ofl 12:00 .98.S "F 99.99 "F 1.35 ft 0015 worst 5/1/30 day temceratur es 0.0 ft 15:00 99.5 °F 99.94 °F 1.35 ft 0018 - O.Oft 18:00 100.0°F -

100.00°F 0021 O.Oft 21:00 100.0°F 100.00°F -

0600 *0.5 ft 0:00 . 100.0°F 100.00°F -

0603 0606 worst day temperature 0.5 ft 3:00 99.2 °F 99.96 °F ' -

0609 worst day temperature worst 511130 day temperatures 0.5 ft 0.5ft 6:00 9:00 97.9°F 97.S°F 99.98 °F -

99.98 °F 1.35 ft 0612 wol'$l 5/1 /30 day temperatures 0.5 ft 12:00 98.3 "F 99.96 °F 1.35 ft 0615 worst 511130 day temperatures O.Sft 0618 . O.Sft 15:00 18:00 99.S°F 100.0°F 99.97 °F 100.00°F 1.36 ft 0621 - 0.5 ft 21:00 100.0 "F 100.00°F -

1800 - 1.5 ft 0:00 100.0 "F 100.00°F -

1803 worst day temperature

1.5 ft 3:00 98.8°F 99.96 °F -

1806 worst day temperature 1.5 ft 6:00 97.2 *°F 99.98 °F -

-1 1 ..

1809 worst day temperature 1.S ft 9:00 96.5~ 99.98°F 1809 worst 5/1130 day temperatures 1.5 ft 9:00 96.S°F 99.80°F 1.35 ft 1812 worst 511/30 day temperatums 1.5 ft 12:00 97.§ °F 00.'18 °F .1.35 ft 1815 worst 511/30 day temperatures 15:00 1.5 ft 99.4 °F . 99.97°F 1.38 ft 1818 1821 .

1.5 ft 18:00 100.0°F 100.00°F .

OOe worst 30 day evaporation 1.5 ft O.Oft 21:00 12:00 100.0°F 100.00°F -

97.e°F 99.95°F 1.46 ft 06e worst 30 day evaporation 0.5 ft 12:00 97.4 °F 99.97°F 1.46 ft 18e worst 30 day evaooratlon 1.5 ft 12:00 "96.8 °F 99.97°F . 1.48 ft

Note: The*tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Current design analysis is based on results reported in

Attacluncnt G for a l02°F plant iJ.ltake temperature limit. and Attachment H for a 104"F plant intake temperature limit. These results do, however, provide the basis for the controlling time for the start of the limiting transient. 9 AM.

('\

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 46 Fig. 7.1: Umltlng uke Temperaturea vs. Time of Day 101-r------------~------------------------------------~

100 k:: D e!1 ~

G:' 99 .

l se lI e-97

~~

98 I ~

~-

. .~ /

.;,'* ~.

f>. **

- o. .... .

~

s ., f -. - ... ....o. .. . 1- .

t::::.-:_

f " t ... *o*... -<> *** ~ .o.

1-1.-18-fndlas of SUtaUon 94 .L---------------- --1 <>* Lake Ruponse to Worst Day:

In Weather History u .

0 300 800 . 800 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 nm. of.,., (In)

Note: This table represents historical results for the Rev. 3 analysis. Rev. 4 and Rev. S analyses results are presented in Attachments G and H, respectively. *

/,,.,,.- .....__ ,,.,,,,-.- .....

()

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 47 Fig. 7.2. case 0009: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient Updated Worst 36-0ay Temperature Period (d 111 O In, t a 0900 hrs, Tl =98.0F) 130 UHS lnW Tarnpesature

-UHS Out1at Tempsllunt 120rt-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1 ii:"

!~

I 110 r-'f:f'.~~C'A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~_j j 100 Ia

_: V U - \ J\ / Y .,,. 1

' :. a.

V< xa - r"o11\ I I sol vy- uv u..v * '*A - - I\

A *A

11: l~' l '..I \J 80+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~,--~~~--t 10+-........-.--...--. .------......--.--..--.--..--.~.--..----.-......__,.--.....-.--.-.....--..--......-.--.-......

0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 3> 2f 22 %1 24 25 2111 'ZT 28 28 30 31 32 *33 34 35* 38 Dap after SCRAM Note: The tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Current design analysis is based on results reported in * .

Attachment G for a 102°F plant intake temperature limit, and Attachment H for a 104"F plant intalce temperature limit These results do, however, provide the basis for the controlling time for th~ start of the limiting transient, 9 AM.

f'

.~

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 48 Fig~ 7 .3, case 0009: UHS LOCA Drawdown First 30 Days of Updated Worst 36-0ay Tempera ture Period 690.25-r-~~~~~~~~--~

=

(d 0 in, t

0900 hrs, Ti a 98.0F)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~

690.00.,.,...~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~---1 689.75t-~~~~__;'""-~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~-I 689.50

!g I.!I 689.25 w

Cll x

689.00 668.75.&-~~~~~~~~--,~--,~~~--,

~~--,~~~'"-~~__,~~~~~~__,__;:!

llooo,~-;

688.50~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~--~~~~~~-

,-~~~~~~--,__,~

~__,__,~~--t 688.25+- -.,-....,...- -.--,.--......_.......__,..,_............._.-...--., --...--.-- .--.,.--,r --.......

0 1 2 3 4 5 B 7 8 8 10 1t 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 2D 21 22 23 24 25 28 'II 28 29 30 Days after SCRAM Note: The tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rt:v. 3 calculation

. Cur:rent design analysis is based on results reported in Attacrune nt G for a 102°F plant intake temperatu re limit, and Attachmen t H for a 104°F plant intake temperatu re limit These results do, however, provide lhe basis for lhe controllin g time for the start of the limiting transient, 9 AM.

_,---..\

/~.

(\

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 49 Fig. 7.4, case OOe: UHS LOCA Temperature Transient Updated Worst 30-oay Evaporation Period (d 11: Q In, t =1200 hrs. TI 111 97 .&F) .

"f--------------:------ ---11-uHS 130 *I\

UHS Inlet Tempendure I Oldli!I Temperature I

120tt-~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~

~ttol~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..:._~~

!l

~,oo~-;\~~-:-1\fr~A~/\J\:-~_:_~~-..--~j s

~

i

~

90 I - ' - II " - I \ ft "* I I \I ... , l.:I lk ' ' d .,

00 -

70-t--.---..~.,.--.--....~..-.-.--.-~...--.- .......--.~T--.-......__,,..-..,-....,.......,~T----..--.-......-...__,..-.........,.__,,....~

O t 2* 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 to t1 t2 t3 14 tS t6 11

111 t8 2D 2t 22 :23 24 25 28 XI 28 29 30 Daya after SCRAM Note: The tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Current design analysis is bas(d on results reported in

Attachment G for a 102°F plant intake temperature limit, and Attachment H for a 104°F plant intake temperature limit These re.suits do, however, provide the basis for the controlling time for the start of the limiting transient, 9 ~. *

~' .

~

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 50 Fig. 7.5, Case O~: UHS i.OCA Orawdowi'I Updated Worst 30-Day Evaporation Period (d

o In, t = 1200 hrs, Ti= 97.&F}

690.25-r-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~--~~~--~~~--~--~

690.00~~~~~--:-~..-~~~~~~~~~~..-~

~~~~--,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-t 889.1s L ___:~~--~---------------------------1 689.50 Ic 0

':J 689.25 G

ii) s

~

689.00 688.75+------------------------------.......;;:~-----f 688.50 L------~----------~-__;_-----~--:-1 688.25+--.-........-..--.------ ..----r---- --..----.--- --.-..--.--- ---..-...--. ..---........-.---..--- -.-..---......

..---t 0 1 2 3 4 5 . 6 7 8 9 tO '1 t2 t3 t4 15 16 17 tB t9 Z> 2t 22 21 24 .25 2S 71 28 29 . 30 Days after SCRAM Note: The tables and figures hc:re rc:prc:scnt historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Current design analysis is based on results reported in Attachment G for a 102"F plant intake temperature limit, and AU..chment H for a 104°F plant intake temperature limit These results do, however, provide the basis for the controlling time for the start of the limiting transient, 9 AM. *

,-, .r -

(\

CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 51 Fig. 7.6, Case 0609: UHS LOCA Temper ature Transie nt Updated Worst 3M>ay Temper ature Period (d =6 in, t = 0900 hrs, TI a 97.IF) 130

-UHS lnlelTemperatunl

-UHS OUll8I TempandlB8 1~1L~~~~~~~~-.,...-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IL" r

~ 110

=

!-= 100 Ix '1v~' I ... 1, 1

,~I( Y\

<II v

1::

I' ~ I"

' I

.:: .~ - I \

i so I - v \I - \! V \. A

I \A f\ . A ii .. I \I ' 889.25 UI iii Cl)

i:
)
688.50-1--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~___;.~~~~~~-----1 888.25+--r-~-...--,r--T-...,....~_,..__,._...,r--..--...,....~~-...--.~----..,...-.-....,.__,~,..-...,......,...~
......~----~
o s e a e ,o n 12 13 14 ,s ,e n 1a 11 20 21 22
zs
( 29 30 1 2 3 4 1 24 z; 21 71 21
~~~ .
Note: The tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Current design analysis is based on results reported in Attachment G for a 102"F plant intake temperature limit. and Attachment H for a 104°F plant intake temperature limit: These results do, however, provide the basis for the controlling time for the start of the limiting transient. 9 AM.
r--- (\
CALCULA TION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 53 Fig. 7.8, case 06e: UHS LOCA Temperatu re Transient Updated Worst 30-Day Evaporation Period (d = 6in,t=120 0 hrs, Tl= 97.4F) 130 -UHSOUUl!tT~
UHSlnlelT~
12Drt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--f ii:'
it
~110-1-.......--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
! ~~~~~ --t
~
t
_: 100 LIA 4 1\Ii
_ I'\ _ I" l /\ " A I j
"C it 90 I y \ y \I I I\ "
K ( ... .\ a. f 'I 'XI
\ I ' (, I\ " \J '
\.I '4 BOI . .. .,, \~f YV,, - l 70~..............--'-...-------~------.....~------.....~--...-..............--.......-.--.--...- -..---.--.-
o f 2 3 4 5 8 7 a 9 10 t1 12 13 14 15 16 17 ~8 19 20 21 22 ZS 24 25 _,.--...... ...---~
26 'ZI 28 29 30 Days after SCRAM Note: The tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Cwrent design analysis is based on results reported in Attachment G for a 102"F plant intake temperature limit, and Attachment H for a 104"F plant intake temperature the basis for the controlling ti.me for the start of the limiting transient, 9 AM.
limit These results do, however, provide
n
(
CALCULATIO N NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 54 Fig. 7.9, Case 06e; UHS LOCA Drawdown Updated Worst 30-Day Evaporation Period (d a ' in, t '? 1200 hrs, Ti = 97 .4F) 690..25---~~~~~~~~~:--.:........~~~~~~~----~~----~----~~~~-,
~ *-- -.
690.00"k-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~-'-~~~~~-I 689.751-~~__::~c--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
889.SO
!c 0
~ 689.25 m
Cit
z::
689.00 688.75+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~r-~~~--t 688.S0-1-~~~~~~~~~~~~--,~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~........,.~~~--t 688.251--____ _____'-'T"'"._..__.....,.__,.__,__ ,.._,.---.--...-... ----...-....--.-........-.---:'-'T"'"-----__,........,:--:'i:-'.~
0 1 2 3 4 5 5 T 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17
18 19 20 21 22 Z3 24 25 2B '!1 28 29
30 Days aftlr &CRAM Note: The tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Current deSign analysis is based on results reported in Attachment G for a 102"F plant intake temperature limit, and Attachment H for a 104°F plant intake temperature linlit. These results do, however, provide the basis for the controlJing time for the ~tart of the limiting transient, 9 AM. *
~
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 55 Fig. 7.10, ~ 1800: UHSLOCA T~reTransient LPdated War& 36-Qiy Terrperature Period (d = 18 in, t = 0000 hrs, 1i = 96.SF)
-UHS Inlet Temperature
~c~--~~~
..--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---UHSOJUaTemperature u:- 13)
~ 120---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--t
s
~
~ 110
E Q)
~ 100 +..a
M v .. I .. \: V'\ I * " ,, ¥ - \{ \ - . ...... " A - t\ *'- I ~L' I Q)
-~ ooc==--~~~
~
~ 00 I ... V ~- I* \.l'I - * .,. - 1'\ A .... '8A. I t.i.- A. - R A a 1\1\1 - \I c:
70+-,.........,--.---------------_...,-----------..-.-------------.,..........,,..........,..--..-__.____...,.__..,..........._,...___~
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3) 31 32 33 34 3.5 36 O:lys after SCRAM Note: The tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Current design analysis is based on results reported in Attachment G for a 102°F plant intake temperature limit, and Attachment H for a 104°F plant intake temperature limit These results do, however, provide the basis for the controlling time for the start of the limiting transient, 9 ~ -
,,.. ..---......... r--...
(\
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 56 Fig*.7.11, Case 1809; UHS LOCA Drawdown First 30 Days of Updated Worst 36-0ay Temperature Period .
(d a 18 In, t = 0900 hrs. TI a 96.SF) 690.25-r-~~~~~~~~~~~--------------------------------------------------~-- ...
. 690.00~~~~--~------~--~-.--.-..,.--~~-.-~-.--.----.-~-
.--.--.--.---~---.-~--~---.----t 689.75-r-~~~~---'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~.....,....~~~~~~~~~~-t 689.50 lc 0
iii> 689.25 J!
w
c 689.00 888.75t-~~~~~~~~~~-.-~-.-~~~~-.-~-.-~~~.
...,.....~-.--.-~-.-~~~--':-..~--t 688.50+--.--.--.--.--.-~-.--.--.-~-.--.--.--.--.-~-.--.
--.--.-~-.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.----~
688..25~--......------------ -----.--..-- ..--....,..... .,........--,,_.....,....... ,..__,--..-.,...
._,..._--,,____,..__,,..._.,......,...__,~
0 1 2 3 4
5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 .Zl 24 25 :ZS XI 2B 29 30
Days after SCRAM Note: The tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Cunent design analysis is based on results reported i.n Attachment G for a 102"F plant intake temperature limit, and Auachment H for a 104"F plant intake temperature limit These results do, however, provide the basis for the controlling time for the st.art of the limiting transient. 9 AM.
('* (\.
CALCUL ATION NO. L-00245 7 REVISIO N NO. 8 PAGE NO. 57 Fig. 7.12, case 18e: UHS LOCA Temperature Transien t ..
Updated Worst ~ay Evaporation Period (d
18 In, ts: 1200 hrs, Ti* 96.IF) 130 UHS lnlel Tempeniture
-UHS OU11et Temperature 120++--~----~----~----~---------- ..... --------~--~~----------,----~~------~~------4
~
~110f~'
zi f!
f\----------------------_:_ ______ ~ __"""'."""_______ _______ _______ _ ~------------~
~
~
c 100 la \ A I' " h ,* . "
ft * 1" \l ** I i
"" \II I i:
90 I .. V"* - 11'1 Ir 1V'1/ I .*n lil\IU l\UV 'd\I \I 801 - * - U'\I wlA:f VVV -\1¥" 1 70-'--.---.~..-------..--.---.--r-.....--.....--......-.....
._,.--r-..,....-...--r-~
0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 . t1 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2;; 2D 'D 28 29 30 Days after &CRAM Note: The tables and figures here represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation. Cunent design analysis is based on results reported in*
Attachme*nt G for a 102°F plant intake temperature limit, and Attachment H for a l04°F plant intake temperature limil These resulis do, however, provide the basis for the controlling time for the start of the limiting transient, 9 AM.
,,,-- (\ ..---.....'.
CALCUL ATION NO. L-00245 7 REVISIO N NO. 8 PAGE NO. 58 Fig. 7.13, Case 18e: UHS LOCA Drawdown Updated Worst ~Y Evaporation Period (d =i 18in,t=1 200 hrs, TI= 96.BF) 690.25-r-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~-

~------~--~~~--~--~

m.ooL-~~~~~~~~~~~~-.-~~-.-~~~~~~~~~"-j 689.75-1--~~~~c-~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 689.50 lc 0
i> 689.25 Ill en
§ 689.00 688.25+ --.-.......--.--.,._.. _....,........--...-...--.--.,..--.--...-...--.--.-~--...-...--.
--.---.--...--.-........--..~.--...-----1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 . 13 . 14 15 18 17 _18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 %1 28 29 30
_Daya after SCRAM Note: The tables and figures her.c represent historical analysis results for the Rev. 3 calculation
. Current design analysis is based on results reported in Attachment G for a 102°F plant intake temperature limit, and Attachment H for a 104°F plant intake temperature limit. These results do, however, provide .
the basis for the controllin g time for the start of the limiting transient, 9 AM.
(\
/ ~-
CALC ULAT ION NO. L-002 457 REVISION NO. 8 PAGE NO. 59 LAST PAGE OF MAIN BODY Figure 7.14 UHS Heat Load Follow ing LOCA 900~,--~~~~~~~~~~---------------
--- ....--~--------~--~----~~~~ ....~~~~--.
800.Q 700.0 600.0 r
~
i 500.0
~
3 400.0
c
°'
s;
)
300.0 200.0 100.0
........-.--.. --.--. --..-- r-............
o~..._..,.......,..
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 2D 21 22 Z) 24 :25 28 X1 28 29 30 31 32 33 .34 35 38 .
Days after SCRAM Note: The tables and figures here represcnl historical analysiS resulls for the Rev. 3 calculation. Curren t design analysis is b~
Attachm ent G for a 102°F pl.anl intake temperature limit, and OJ) resulls reporte d in * .
Attachment H for a 104°F plant intake temperature limit. These the basis for the controlling time for the start of the limiting transien results do. however, provide t, 9 AM.
FINAL PAGE
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVIS ION NO. 8 A TIACHMENT J, PAGE J1 of J40
(
Attachment J - UHS Flow Path Analysis c Prepared: _ _ __~
iJJJ. __*_,.___~.----Date 0~~
niele Ludovisi - Sargent & Lundy 1""°/2413 Reviewed gJ J Pawel Kut - Sargent & LundlLc Date /0- QI- Z.01 J Revision 8 of this attachment adds Appendix J8.6 (pages J33 to J40).
c. PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J2 of J40
( Jl.O PURPOSE The purpose of this attachment is to evaluate the water flow pattern in the man-made Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) at LaSalle County Generating Station with the water depth at its minimum, that the water level is at elevation 690 ft [Ref. J5.1] and the UHS bottom is covered with approximately 1.5 ft of silt [Ref. J5.8]. The analysis is carried by means of computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The recirculation areas in the UHS are identified and the UHS volume actively involved in the main water flow is estimated along with and the associated surface area. The output of this evaluation is to provide effective lake volume and surface area for use in the S&L LAKET-PC computer program.
Jl.1 Background The UHS is designed to provide sufficient cooling water to permit the safe shutdown and cool down of the station for both normal and accident conditions. In the unlikely event that the main dike is breached, there is a submerged pond within the cooling lake for the LaSalle County Station that is designed to hold water. This remaining water constitutes the ultimate heat sink for the station. It has a depth of approximately 5 feet and a top water elevation established at 690 feet [Ref. J5.1].
Considering approximately 1.5 ft of silt at the bottom of the UHS, a CFD analysis is performed to predict the water main flow pattern and estimate the volume of water contained in the active zones of the UHS and the corresponding surface area. These inputs are used in main report to determine the combined impact of power uprate and allowable sediment accumulation in the UHS on the maximum plant inlet temperature and evaporative drawdown by use of the S&L LAKET-PC computer program.
J2.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA J2.1 Methodology J2. l. l Effective volume and effective surface area Figure J-3 shows a top view of the UHS computational domain. As shown, water enters the UHS in one of the UHS side branches and exits from the intake flume. Zones of recirculation are expected in the other branch of the UHS, which is a dead leg, and in proximity of the UHS inlet. LAKET-PC is a one-dimensional lake thermal prediction computer program [Ref. J5.10]. The one-dimensional assumption coerces the water body into an idealized rectangular channel. In this idealization, water entering the channel displaces an equal amount of water out of the back end (see Figure J-1). At some time (tn) after the start of flow (to), the volume of displaced water is equal to Q*( t0 -t0 ), where is the Q is the flow rate of the water flowing into the channel. Indicating the total volume of the channel with Vchanneb all of the water is considered to have swept out of the channel at time t = t0 +Vchannei/Q. However, if the lake being modeled has stagnant volumes, the water in those volumes would not be swept out of the exit as idealized in the LAKET-PC modeling. For more accurately conforming the real lake to the idealized channel, these stagnant volumes and the corresponding surfaces must be removed from the active volume.
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J3 of J40
(
Figure J-1. Reference water flow.
Initial volume of water still present in the channel at time t Vchannel Straight channel Veffective Channel with I
recirculation zones Vtrapped in recirculation zones 0-'-~~........jP--~~~~~~___;::::::=::..--~-..
to leffectlve t = to + V channei/0 Time Figure J-2. Water displaced in the reference straight channel and in channel with recirculation zones.
Figure J-2 shows both the idealized and actual amount of water displaced from a lake with recirculating (stagnant) volumes. If we could differentiate between water that was initially in the lake from new water entering the lake, we could use the concentration of initial water remaining in the lake at time t to find the fraction of water that was not swept out at time t. This is the fraction of the lake not actively participating in the channel flow.
This volume and the corresponding surface area should be removed from the lake total dimensions to provide more accurate and conservative results.
The amount of water initially in the channel at time to and still present in the channel, trapped in the recirculation zones, at time t = to + (Vchanne1/Q) is calculated as follows (with to =0):
V trapped in the reciruclation zones ( t) = fCV initial water in the channel ( t)dV (12.l-l) vchamel
(_
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J4 of J40 where Vchannel is the total volume of the channel and cVinitial water in the channc1(t) is the volumetric distribution of water initially in the channel at time t<, and still present in the channel at time t. The effective volume is calculated as follows:
l veffective = vchannel - vtrapped in the reciruclation zones (t) =
JC V initial water in the channel (t)dV
= Vchannel l - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vchanne1 (J2. l-2)
[
=
vchannel
= Vchannel {1- CV initial water in the channel (t))
where the term -v C inltia1waterinthechanne1(t)= IC init1a1waterinthechanne1(t)dV vchannel v IVchannei is equal to the volume average concentration of the amount of water initially in the channel at time t<,
and still present in the channel at time t. The effective surface area is calculated in manner similar to the effective volume. At the surface of the channel, the amount of water initially in the channel at time ta and still present in the channel, trapped in the recirculation zones, at time t = (Vchanne1/Q) is calculated as follows:
( Strapped inthe reciruclation zones {t) = fCS initial water inthe channel (t)dS (12.1-3)
Schanno!
where Schannet is the total surface of the channel and cs initial water in the channe1(t) is the surface distribution of water initially in the channel at time ta and still present in the channel at time t. The effective surface is calculated as follows:
l S effective = S channel - Strapped inthe reciruclation zones (t) =
JC initia1water in the channe1 (t)dV 8
= (J2. l-4)
[
= Schannel 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
scl\aMof schannel
= schannel (1- C initialwater in the channel (t))
5 where the term -s C initia1waterinthechanne1(t)= fCs initia1waterinthechanne1(t)dVISchannei is equal to Sdlannol the surface average concentration of the amount of water initially in the channel at time t<,
and still present in the channel at time t.
(
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATIACHMENT J, PAGE JS of J40
( J2. l .2 Calculation strategy As indicated in Section J2.l.l, the volume and surface averaged concentrations of the water initially in the UHS at to = 0 sec still present in the UHS at time t = VuHs/Q are necessary in order to calculate the effective UHS volume and surface.
The analysis of the water flow in the UHS is carried out through the use of the commercially available CFD code STAR-CCM+ [Ref. J5.2]. The calculation is performed in two steps:
I. The first step is employed to find the steady state flow distribution in the UHS. This solution is used as initial condition for the transient multi-component fluid mixture in the second step.
2. During this second step, newly introduced water in the UHS is specified to be a different liquid but with the same properties of the water already present in the UHS.
The flow pattern and mixing of these liquids are calculated and tracked over time from time t0 = 0 sec to t = VuHs/Q. At the end of the transient analysis, the surface average concentration of the amount of water initially in the UHS and still present in the UHS at time t = VuHs/Q are calculated to find the effective volume and surface.
( J2. l .3 Geometrical domain The CFD analysis is carried out in three-dimensions. For the computations, the water domain is considered from the outlet of the inlet chute into the UHS to the exit of the intake flume. Figure J-3 shows a top view of the computational domain while Figures J-4 and J-5 show the inlet and outlet boundaries, respectively. Figure J-6 shows the bottom view of the UHS. Design Input J4.1 reports the dimensional information used to generate the model. Assumption 13.1 is used to evaluate the UHS thickness. The main dimensions are indicated in Figures J-1 to J-3. Figures J-4 to J-7 also show, in quotations, names associated to each of the boundaries in the numerical model. Note that this evaluation reports the fraction of active volume and surface area. Therefore, slight variations in the lake dimensions will not significantly affect the final results.
J2.l.4 Mesh The computational domain is discretized by using polyhedral cells with a base size of 12 ft, and six thin layers through the thickness of the UHS. Where necessary, the cell size is reduced down to 6 ft and, in proximity of the inlet boundary, down to 1.5 ft. Figures J-5 to J-8 show the mesh employed for the computations, which consists of 1,761,870 nodes for a total of 748,386 cells. Appendix J8.l provides the STAR-CCM+ report of the mesh quality.
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO . 8 ATTACHMENT J , PAGE J6 of J40
(
Domain outlet 2200 ft
(
Figure J-3 . UH S computational domain: Top view .
" FreeSurface"
" Inlet" Figure J-4. UHS computatio nal domai n: Inlet boundary.
(
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATIACHMENT J, PAGE J7 of J40
(
"Outlet" 80 ft Figure J-5. UHS computational domain : Outlet boundary.
1:4 "Soi l" I C Figure J-6. UHS computational domain: Bottom view.
Note : The indicated depths are net values; the silt layer of 1.5 ft (see Design Input J4.3) is already considered in the indicated values.
Figure J-7. UHS computational domain: Mesh detail of the inlet boundary.
(
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J8 of J40
(
Figure J-8. UHS computational domain: Mesh detail of the outlet boundary.
Figure J-9. UHS computational domain: Cross section of the outlet boundary mesh both along and across the axis.
(
Figure J-10. UHS computational domain: Mesh detail of the free surface boundary.
(
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J9 of J40
(
J2.l.5 Numerical model As indicated in Section J2. l .2, the calculation is carried out in two steps.
Step One: Steady State Single-Fluid Analysis The numerical analysis is carried out using the segregated SST (Menter) k-ro model with the ally+ wall treatment. The shear stress transport (SST) formulation is a blend of a k-co formulation, which is used near walls, and a k-e formulation, which is used in regions far from walls. The use of a k-ro formulation in the inner parts of the boundary layer makes the model directly usable all the way down to the wall through the viscous sub-layer without additional modifications. Hence, the SST k-co model can be used as a low Reynolds turbulence model without any extra damping functions. The SST formulation also switches to a k-e behavior in the free-stream and thereby avoids the common k-ro problem of being too sensitive to the inlet free-stream turbulence properties. This model is fairly robust, it demonstrated superior performance for wall bounded problems and low Reynolds number flows, it showed potential for predicting transition regions and it also is often found to do a better job at capturing recirculation regions than other models [Ref.
J5.2].
Therefore, the SST (Menter) k-ro model with the all y+ wall treatment is particularly suited for the geometry analyzed in this calculation which presents a confined flow with
( very extensive surface associated to an extremely small thickness, and a uniform mesh through the thickness of the domain as generated by the thin mesher generator.
A constant-density single-fluid is specified as working liquid with the properties of water 3
at 100°F (see Assum~tion 13.2) with a density of approximately 62 lb/ft and a dynamic viscosity of6.727*10- atm-s [Ref. J5.7].
The following boundary conditions are applied:
"FreeSurface" - This boundary represents the free surface of the lake. As a simplification, this boundary is considered to be rigid in order to reduce the computational time. This simplification does not significantly impact the results of the calculation since the water velocity is small and very small or no waves are expected to form (tranquil flow). Furthermore, this boundary is specified to be a symmetry plane in order to guarantee a zero shear stress (free surface flow).
"Inlet" - This boundary represents the inlet to the UHS. It is specified to be a mass 3
flow inlet boundary with an inlet flow rate of 86 ft /sec, which is approximately equal to 5333.7 lb/sec [Ref. JS.8].
"Outlet" - This boundary represents the outlet to the UHS. It is specified to be a simple pressure outlet boundary.
(_
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATIACHMENT J, PAGE J10 of J40
( * "Soil" - This boundary represents the bottom and sloped sides of the UHS. It is specified to be a rough no-slip wall boundary with a roughness of 5.0 in (see Assumption J3.3).
The system is initialized with constant zero velocity and pressure and let to evolve to final steady state solution.
Step Two: Transient Two-Fluid Analysis The results of Step One are used as initial condition to the calculation performed in this second phase. The following changes are made to the model:
I. Transient solver - The solver is specified to be implicit unsteady with maximum number of inner iteration per time step equal to 20. The time step is adjusted through the computation for an initial minimum value of 0.1 sec to a final maximum value of 100 sec. The transition from one time step to the other is normally performed after ensuring that the residuals are always small and the solution is converged at each time step.
2. Two-fluid specification - The solver is changed to account for a two fluid mixture.
Both fluids have the properties of water at l 00°F and the are labeled "WaterLake" for the water initially present in the UHS at the beginning of the transient analysis (from Step One) and "WaterCirculating" for the water injected from the "Inlet" boundary.
( For the two-fluid mixture, the code can compute the mixture properties based on the local concentration of the two base fluids and their molecular weight. Since there is no difference between the "WaterLake" and "WaterCirculating", the properties of the mixture are specified to be constant and equal to that of water at 100°F.
In order to compute the diffusion of one liquid into the other, the Schmidt number and the turbulent Schmidt number need to be specified for the mixture. The Schmidt number is a dimensionless parameter defined as the ratio of momentum diffusivity and mass diffusivity as [Ref. J5.2] :
Schmidt =_µ_ (J2.l-5)
PD1m where µ is the dynamic viscosity, p is the density and Dim is the molecular diffusivity of component-i into the mixture. The Schmidt number used in this analysis is equal to 219.8 (see Appendix J8.2). The turbulent Schmidt number is taken as the default value in STAR-CCM+ which is equal to 0.9. This implies that the turbulent mass diffusivity is proportional to the turbulent viscosity, which is an unknown a-priori variable and it is locally computed by the code. Note that the computed solution is fairly insensitive to the choice of the Schmidt number and the turbulent Schmidt number within the range of realistic values. The molecular weight for both fluids, which is another input required to compute the mass diffusivity, is specified to be 18.0153 lb/lbmol [Ref. J5 .9].
(_
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATIACHMENT J, PAGE J11 of J40
( 3. Boundary conditions - The boundary conditions are kept the same as for the steady-state analysis. However, the fluid entering the "Inlet" surface is specified to the 100%
"WaterCirculating" and, in case of backflow at the "Outlet" surface, the re-entering fluid is specified to the 100% "WaterLake". This last condition is specified only to complete the STAR-CCM+ input file for this analysis but it is not used during the computation.
4. Initial conditions - The results of steady state analysis are used as initial conditions for the transient calculation. The liquid present in the UHS at the beginning of the transient simulation (t = 0 sec) is specified to be 100% "WaterLake".
5. Simulation time - The calculation is performed from time t51a 11 = 0 sec to time tend =
VUHsfQ. The total volume of the UHS is manually requested and printed out by STAR-CCM+ after the generation of the computational domain and it is equal to 7 3 3 V uHs = 1.454446* 10 ft
The flow entering the UHS is equal to 86 ft /sec [Design 7 3 3 Input J4.2]. Therefore, lend= VuHslQ = (1.454446-10 ft )/(86 ft /sec) = 169,122 sec=
47 hrs.
After the completion of the transient simulation, the volume and surface average concentrations of "WaterLake" are computed and the results are used to manually calculate the UHS effective volume and surface as percentages respectively of the total UHS volume and surface by applying equations 12.1-2 and J2.1-4 as follows:
( 1- CV LakeWater ( t = 47 hf) (12.1-6)
_S_eff_ec_tiv_e C 5 LakeWater (t = 47 hr) (12.1-7)
SuHs Appendix 18.3 provides the STAR-CCM+ summary report of the model including physics and boundary conditions.
J2.2 Computer Programs and Software The analysis performed herein utilizes:
1. STAR-CCM+ 6.04.014, S&L Program No. 03.7.863-6.04.014. Controlled folder on Sargent & Lundy STARCCM server: C:\Program Files\CD-adapco (see code file listing in Appendix 18.4).
All runs are executed on Sargent & Lundy server STARCCM with 64-bit Windows Server Standard 2007 operating system. The code has been validated under the Sargent & Lundy Quality Assurance Program.
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J12 of J40
( 2. MathCad 14.35, S&L Program No. 03.7.548-1435. Controlled folder on Sargent
& Lundy PC: C:\Program Files\ MathCad\ MathCadl4 (see code file listing in Appendix J8.5).
All runs are executed on Sargent & Lundy PC ZL558 l with 32-bit Windows XP SP3 operating system. The code has been validated under the Sargent & Lundy Quality Assurance Program
3. Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Office Professional 2003 SP-2 including Excel, S&L Program No. 03.2.286-1.0.
All runs are executed on Sargent & Lundy PC ZL5581 with 32-bit Windows XP SP3 operating system. The validation of Excel is implicit in the detailed review of all spreadsheets used in this analysis.
J2.3 Acceptance Crit~ria ____.
There are no specific acceptance criteria for the effective volume and surface values estimated in this calculation. This information is gathered to support thermal analysis of the UHS performed in the main report.
For the CFD analysis, the computational mesh must be of acceptable quality, as verified by Appendix J8.l. Furthermore, the calculated results must be converged as verified by the plot of the residuals in Appendix J8.3(page131).
(_
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J13 of J40
( J3.0 ASSUMPTIONS 13.1 Silt thickness -The depth of the silt layer at the bottom of the UHS is assumed to be 1.5 ft (see Design input 5.3). The use of 1.5 ft silt thickness (maximum allowed value) causes the calculation of a reduced UHS effective volume.
13.2 Water temperature -The water in the UHS is assumed to be at a constant temperature of 100°F. This input is used to estimate the density, viscosity and self-diffusivity of water in the UHS. This input does not significantly impact the results of this calculation.
J3.3 Soil roughness - The roughness of the bottom of the UHS (including the silt layer) is assumed to be 5 in. Since this calculation determines the UHS inactive volumes rather than pressure losses, based on the calculated UHS low water velocities, this input does not significantly impact the results of this calculation.
J4.0 DESIGN INPUTS J4.l UHS dimensions - The UHS dimensions are obtained from References 15.3 to J5.6 as follows:
l. The nominal elevation of the UHS cooling pond bottom is approximately 685 ft
[Ref. JS .5].
ii. The elevation of the bottom of the intake flume is approximately 678.5 ft [Ref.
15.5] .
iii. The bottom of the UHS between the cooling pond and intake flume is approximately flat and its depth varies from 678.5 ft to 685 ft in a linear manner
[Refs. J5.3 to J5.6].
iv. The slope of the UHS side is approximately 1:4 all around its perimeter [Refs.
J5 .3 to 15.6].
v. The width of the water inlet chute is 8 ft [Ref. J5.4].
vi. The width of the intake flume bottom is approximately 40 ft [Ref. J5.6].
v11. The dimensions of the UHS that are not listed above are scaled from Reference 15.3.
vn1. The elevation of the UHS free surface is 690 ft [Ref. JS.l] .
J4.2 UHS flow - The mass flow rate through the UHS is equal to 86 ft3/s [Ref. J5.8].
J4.3 UHS sediment level - The sediment level in the intake flume and cooling pond must remain less than or equal to 1.5 ft [Ref. J5.8]. The use of maximum silting reduces the
(_
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J14 of J40
( --
'-. UHS volume, and therefore the residence time. This reduces the effectiveness of the UHS and it is thus conservative.
J4.4 Properties of water - Water at 100°F has the following properties: density : : : 62 lb/ft:3; dynamic viscosity:::::: 6.727* l0-9 atm-s [Ref. JS.7].
.JS.O REFERENCES JS.I LSCL-UFSAR, Section 9.2.6 "Ultimate Heat Sink", Rev. 19 J5.2 CD-adapco, User Guide, STAR-CCM+ Version 6.04.014, 2011 15.3 Exelon Nuclear - LaSalle Station Drawing No. S-16B Rev. B, "Composite Lake Drawing, Sheet 2" 15.4 Exelon Nuclear - LaSalle Station Drawing No. S-79 Rev. H, "CSCS Pond Water Inlet Chutes Plan and Sections" 15.5 Exelon Nuclear - LaSalle Station Drawing No. 97ES083.1 Rev. 0, "Contours Hydrographic Survey" c
15.6 Exelon Nuclear - LaSalle Station Drawing No. 97ES083 .2 Rev. 0, "Profiles Hydrographic Survey" J5.7 Frank Kreith, "Principles of Heat Transfer", 3rd Ed. 1976, IEP, New York, NY JS.8 LSCL Calculation No. L-002457, Rev. 5 15.9 T.L. Brown, H.E. LeMay Jr., B.E. Bursten, J.R. Burdge, "Chemistry", 9th Ed. 2003, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ JS.10 LAKET-PC User Manual, S&L Program Number 03.7.292-2.2, Rev. 0, October 30, 2004 PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGEJ15ofJ40
( J6.0 EVALUATIONS Step One: Steady State Analysis The steady state simulation is run until convergence for approximately 6,000 iterations
[see Residual graph in Appendix J8.3]. Figure J-11 shows the velocity magnitude distribution and stream lines at the free surface. As seen, the right leg of the UHS presents two large recirculation cells which are not expected to participate significantly to the main water flow. Additional two smaller recirculation areas are visible in proximity to the UHS inlet created by the inlet water stream.
Velocity: Magnitude (ft/s)
3. 1399 2 .51 19
(
Figure J-11. UHS computation - Step One: Velocity magnitude and stream lines on the UHS free surface.
Step Two: Transient Analysis After applying the changes indicated in Section J2.1 .5 to the steady state model , the transient simulation is run for approximately 40,000 iterations from time t51art = 0 sec to time tend = 47 hrs [see Residual graph in Appendix J8.3]. Figure 12 shows the surface concentration distribution for the "WaterLake". As expected, the velocity distribution is practically unchanged with respect to the steady-state solution (see Figure J-13).
(
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
(""-
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J16 of J40 MassFractlon of WaterLake 1.CXXXJ Velocffy: Magnffude (ft/s)
3. 1403 0.8CXXXJ 2 .5 122 0.6CXXXJ J.""'2 0.4CXXXJ J.25cH 0.2CXXXJ 0 .02805 O.ocaxJ I. 1481...otJ.6 Figure J-12. VHS computation - Step Two: Surface Figure J-13. UHS computation - Step Two: Velocity concentration for "WaterLake" at 47 hrs. magnitude and stream lines on the VHS free surface.
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J17 of J40 The numerical computation of both Step One and Two is considered to be successful upon evaluation of the relative residual (unitless) plot shown in Appendix J8.3 (see page 31 ). The residuals of the fluid dynamics variables are very well behaved and with a magnitude, at the end of each main iteration, small enough to ensure a sufficiently converged solution. Therefore, the acceptance criteria in Section J2.3 are satisfied.
c0 0.9 - - Straight Channel
-e --UHS
£ 0.8
~
! 0.7
~ 0.6 0
c 0 0.5
"'!:>"'c u
c 0.4

~-------------------

..E 0
0 I .....
0.3 I .....
I .....
0
.. 0.2 I '
a>
'°,.-
~
0.1 .....
~
~ ..... I 0 +-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-T-~~~~~~~--,--'~
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time [hr]
Figure J-14. UHS computation - Time variation of the "WaterLake" volume average concentration in the UHS.
Figure J-14 shows the trend over time of the "WaterLake" volume average concentration.
As seen, the concentration decreases linearly at the beginning since the incoming water displaces the water in the UHS. After about 20 hrs, some the incoming water is already exiting the UHS and thus "WaterLake" volume average concentration change is no longer linear: some of the incoming water is being trapped in the areas of recirculation and it cannot efficiently displace the "WaterLake" out of the UHS ..
After 47 hrs, the volume average concentration is computed to be 36.59 %. Therefore, the UHS effective volume percentage as compute by Equation J2.1.6 is equal to (see Appendix J8.3):
veffective 0.3659 = 63.4% (J2.1-8)
VuHs
(_
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
CALCULATION NO. L-002457 REVISION NO. 8 ATTACHMENT J, PAGE J18 of J40 After 47 hrs, the surface average concentration is computed to be 42.09 %. Therefore, the UHS effective surface percentage as compute by Equation 12.1.7 is equal to (see Appendix J8.3:
seffective 1-0.4209 = 57.9%
SuHs (J2.1-9)
J
7.0 CONCLUSION
The UHS effective volume as percentage of the UHS total volume is 63.4 %.
The UHS effective surface as percentage of the UHS total free surface is 57.9 %.
J8.0 APPENDICES 18.1 STAR-CCM+ mesh quality report [see Page 119]
.c*
J8.2 Calculation of the Schmidt number [see Pages 120 to 123]
J8.3 Summary Report of STAR-CCM+ Analysis [see Pages 124to132]
J8.4 STAR-CCM+ 6.01.014, S&L Prog. No. 03.7.863-6.04.014, Controlled folder file listing Electronically attached:
File name: EAppendix J8.4.pdf Size: 22,128 KB; Type : Adobe Acrobat Document; Date 5/23/2012 3:25 PM 18.5 MathCad 14.35, S&L Program No. 03.7.548-1435, Controlled folder file listing Electronically attached:
File name: EAppendix J8.5.pdf Size: 2,068 KB; Type: Adobe Acrobat Document; Date 5/23/2012 3:27 PM 18.6 Additional information requested by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 27th 2013 [see Page 133to140]
(_
PROJECT NO. 11333-297
Calculation No. l-002457 Append!* JS. I Revision No. 8 AttachmentJ Page J19 of J40 Boundaries of region Lake:
Boundary soil : 126832 faces (7 triangular, 236 quadrilateral, 126589 polygonal)
Extents:
x : ~-4.2672000000e+OOO, 7.8150720000e+002~ m
( y : -4.2672000000e+OOO, l.4874240000e+003 m z : -1. 9812000000e+OOO , 1. 0668000000e+OOO m surface area: 3.2716753125e+005 mA2 maximum boundary skewness angle = 1.2161578369e+002 deg in cell with Prostar cell Index 754941 Boundary Freesurface : 126581 faces Cl triangular, 201 quadrilateral, 126379 polygonal)
Extents:
x: ~-4. 2672000000e+OOO, 7, 8150720000e+002] m y: -4.2672000000e+OOO , 1.4874240000e+003] m z: 1. 0668000000e+OOO, 1. 0668000000e+OOO] m surface area: 3.262579062Se+OOS mA2 maximum boundary skewness angle = 8.594H21228e+001 deg in cell with Prostar Cell Index 158035 Boundary Inlet : 30 quadrilateral faces Extents:
x : ~9. 0220800000e+001 , 9. 2659200000e+001~ m y : 1. 7526000000e+002, 1. 7526000000e+002 m z: 0. OOOOOOOOOOe+OOO , 1. 0668000000e+OOO m surface area: 2. 6012849808e+OOO mA2 maximum boundary skewness angle = 2.4523153305e+001 deg in cell wi th Prostar cell Index 372457 Boundary outlet : 176 faces (174 quadrilateral, 2 polygonal)
Extents:
x : ~2 . 9565600000e+002, 3. 4442400000e+002] m y: 1. 4874240000e+003 , 1. 4874240000e+003] m z: -1. 9812000000e+OOO , l.0668000000e+OOO] m surface area: l.1132573700e+002 mA2 maximum boundary skewness angle= 2 . 8035736084e+001 deg i n cell with Prostar Cell Index 739634 Region Lake:
43 tetrahedral cells 25 hexahedral cells 2 wedge cells 2 pyramid cells 748314 polyhedral cells 748386 cells total 2880831 interior faces (5724 triangular, 2249993 quadrilateral , 625114 polygonal) 1761870 vertices Extents:
x: ~-4. 2672000000e+OOO, 7 .8150720000e+002~ m y : -4. 2672000000e+OOO, 1.4874240000e+003 m z : - 1. 9812000000e+OOO , 1. 0668000000e+OOO m Maximum interior cell index delta: 2296, average : 7 .8781478469e+002 Maximum cell face index delta: 9001, average : 5. 6040540283e+003 volume range : [4.2707888497e-005, 3.1967809200e+OOO] mA3 Minimum volume in cell with Prostar Cell Index 747962 Minimum distance between centroids of neighbor cells = l.9749755266e-002 between cells with Prostar cell Index 452140 and 576394 Maximum s kewness angle = 1.794273376Se+002 deg in cell with Prostar Cell Index 718600 Face validity :
Minimum Face Validity : 8.4159338474e - 001 Maximum Face Validity: l.OOOOOOOOOOe+OOO Face validity< 0 . 50 0 0 . 000%
0. SO <= Face validity < o. 60 O 0.000%
0 . 60 <=Face validity< 0.70 O 0.000%
0.70 <= Face validity < 0.80 0 0 . 000%
0 . 80 <=Face validity< 0 . 90 24 0 . 003%
0 . 90 <=Face Validity 0.95 94 0.013%
0 . 95 <= Face val i dity 1.00 357 0.048%
1.00 <= Face Validity 747911 99.937%
volume Change:
Minimum volume Change : 1. 05274le-003 Maxi mum Volume Change: 1. OOOOOOe+OOO volume Change < O.OOOOOOe+OOO 0 0.000%
O.OOOOOOe+OOO <=volume Change < l. OOOOOOe-006 0 0 . 000%
l.900000e-006 <=volume Change < l.OOOOOOe-005 0 0 . 000%
l.OOOOOOe- 005 <= Volume Change < 1. OOOOOOe - 004 0 0 .000%
l.OOOOOOe-004 <= volume change < l.OOOOOOe - 003 0 0.000%
l. OOOOOOe-003 <= volume Change < 1. OOOOOOe-002 166 0 . 022%
l.OOOOOOe-002 <= Volume Change < 1. OOOOOOe-001 685 0 .092%
l.OOOOOOe-001 <=volume Change <= l.OOOOOOe+OOO 747535 99 . 886%
Maximum boundary skewness angle in region = l.216158e+002 deg Overall Face validity :
Minimum Face Validity : 8 . 415934e-001 Maximum Face validity: l.OOOOOOe+OOO Face Validi t y < 0 . SO 0 0 . 000%
O. SO <= Face val i dity < O. 60 0 0 . 000%
0.60 <=Face validity< 0 . 70 0 0.000%
0 . 70 <= Face validity < 0.80 0 0 . 000%
O. 80 <= Face validity < O. 90 24 0 . 003%
0.90 <=Face validity< 0 . 95 94 0 .013%
0 . 95 <= Face validity < 1.00 357 0 . 048%
1.00 <= Face validity 747911 99 . 937%
overall volume Change :
Minimum Volume change : l.05274le-003 Maximum volume change: l.OOOOOOe+OOO volume change < O.OOOOOOe+OOO 0 0.000%
O.OOOOOOe+OOO <= Volume change < 1. OOOOOOe-006 0 0 .000%
1. 000000e-006 <= Volume Change < 1. OOOOOOe - 005 0 0 . 000%
1.000000e-005 <=volume Change < l.OOOOOOe-004 0 0 . 000%
1.000000e-004 <=volume Change < 1.000000e-003 0 0.000%
1.000000e-003 <=volume change < 1.000000e-002 166 0.022%
1 . OOOOOOe-002 <a Volume Change < l. OOOOOOe-001 685 0.092%
1. OOOOOOe-001 <= Volume change <= 1. OOOOOOe+OOO 747535 99.886%
PROJECT NO. 11333*297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix JB.2 Revision No. 8 Attachment J Page J20 of J40
(
Appendix 88.2 Calculation of the Schmidt number c
References
1. Frank Kreith , "Principles of Heat Transfer", 3rd Ed . 1976, IEP, New York, NY
2. R.S. Smith, Z. Dohnalek, G.A Kimmel , K.P. Stevenson, B.D. Kay, "The self-diffusivity of amorphous
(_ solid water near 150 K" , Chemical Physics Vol. 258, Page 291-305, 2000 Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix JS.2 Revision No. 8 Attachment J Page J21 of J40
(
Water fluid dynamics properties as function of temperature [Ref. 1]
i := 0 .. 4 70°F sooF Tdata.water. I := 90°F Temperature l00°f 150°F 62.3 62.2 lb Density Pdata.watcr. I := 62.1 ft3 62.0 61.2 0.658 c
0.578
- 3 lb f.Ldata. water. I := 0.514
10 -- Dynamic viscosity ft
sec 0.458 0.292 Based on these values, the water density and dynamic viscosity are defined as function of temperature using a linear interpolation procedure:
PwaterCTemp) := linterp( Tdata.water.I* Pdata.watcr. I> Temp)
~aterCTemp) := linterp(T data.water.I* IJ.data.watcr.I *Temp)
(_
Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix J8.2 Revision No. 8 Attachment J Page J22 of J40
(
Water self-diffusivity as function of temperature [Ref. 2)
Reference 2 plots self-diffusivity values for water in liquid state for temperature from 273.15 K (32 °F) to 373.15 K (212 °F). The data below are extracted from Figure 7 of Ref. 2:
277.0 j := 0 .. 8 282.2 286.4 291 .1 Tdata.watcr.2 := 295.7 *K Temperature 299.4 318.6 334. l 364.2 c
1.23E-05 l.49E-05 l .69E-05 l.92E-05 2 cm Self-diffusivity Dww.data.water.2 := 2.05E-05 2.33E-05 3.65E-05 4.71E-05 7.85E-05 Based on these values, the water self-diffusivity is defined as function of temperature using a linear interpolation procedure:
DW\..(Temp) := linterp( T data.water.2>Dww.data.water.2* Temp)
(
Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix J8.2 Revision No. 8 Attachment J Page J23 of J40
(
The Schmidt number is defined as [Ref. 95.2):
llwatcrCTemp)
Schmidt(Temp) := - - - - - - - - -
PwaterCTemp)
Dww(Temp)
A plot of the Schmidt number between 90°F and 130°F is shown below:
90°F 280.6 100°F 219.8 Temperature := 110 °F Schmid\Temperaturei) = 182.l 120°F 151.8 130 Of 126.9 c
250 Schmidt( Ternperaturei) 200 ISO JOO"-------'--- ----'--------'
300 310 320 330 Ternperaturei K
At 100°F, the Schmidt number is equal to 219.8.
(_
Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix JB.3 Revision No. 8 AttachmentJ Pago J24 of J40 Summary Report: UHS step two Session Summary
( Date Simulation Mar 29, 2012 6:16:13 PM C:\Users\On7590\Desktop\UHS.sim File size 2.9e+02 MB Number of Partitions 1 Number of Restored Partitions 1 Software Summary Version BuildArch: win64 BuildEnv: intel11.1 ReleaseDate: Fri Jun 3 18:25:06 UTC 2011 ReleaseNumber: 6.04.014 Hardware Summary Hosts Controller: STARCCM Number of Workers : O Simulation Properties 1 UHS
-1 Fillers
+-2 Parts I * - 1 lake Re91cin Lake Contacts a -
Face count. 572 tags * * **
a Meta Daia . 0
-1 Surfaces
-+ - 1 FreeSurface Boundary rags * * ..
aLake: FreeSurface Meta Data '0
+- 2 Inlet Boundary Lake: Inlet I Tags . . * . a. . . . .
I Meta Data 0
"!'-:~ Outlet .Boundary . Lake: Outlet I Tags
a i I Mela Data . 0
-4 Soll Boundary Lake: Soil Tags a
(
I Meia Data 0
-2 Curves
- I Edges Tags
a Feature Curve *Lake;Edges
+- 3 3D-CAD Models
+ - 4 Tags
- 5 Operations
-G Continua continua
+- 1 Mesh 1 ooc translation false I I Verbose Output false I Per-Region Meshing false Use Parallel Meshing false Interpolation *option * . Nearest neighbor
tnterfaces.
a .. .
Regions [Lake]
-l Models
-I Surface Rernesher Do curvature refinement true I Do proxlmitY refinement . true I Do compaUbility refinement false I Retain geometric features true *
Create aligned meshes false I Minimum face quality 0.05 I Enable ~utomaUc surface *repair . false
-2 Thin Mesher Polyhedral Cells Type Polygonal prisms Run Optimizer
false Automatic Correction true Customize Thickness Threshold *true Customize Surface Size Ratio false Threshold
... z Reference Values 1 1-J BaseSize Value 12.0 II 1 ; * - l CAD Projection Project to CAD true
+-3 Surface Curvature Enable curvature deviation distance raise I -1 Basic Curvature # Pts/circle 36.0
+-.; Surface Growth Rate Surface Growth Rate *1.3
+- 5 Surface Proximity # Points in gap 2.0 I I I Search Floor O.Oft I ** - ;; Surface Size Relativ.e/Absotute Absolute I I Size Method Min and Target 1 ; 1 **- 1 Absolute Minimum Size Value 6.0 it .
I 1 -2 Absolute Target Size Value 12.0 ft
(
! ,. - 7 Thin Masher Layers Number or Layers 6
-8 Thin Solid Thickness Size type Absolute i * -.l Absolute Size Value 11 .0ft
- :; Volumetric Controls
-1 Volumetric Control 1 Part Group a I Shapes [Block 1)
+- 1 Mesh Conditions Project No. 11333-297
Calculadon No. L--002457 A?i>ondlx J8.3 Revision No. 8 AttechmentJ Paoe J25 of J40 1 - l Surface Remesher Customize surface remesher Enabled
- : Mesh Values
- 1 Custom Size s ize type Absoiuie
- 1 Absolute Size Value 1.5ft a.
( - Physics 1 i
+- J Models Interfaces Regions [Lake}
+- 1 Ally+ Wall Treatment
<*-2 Constant Density
+ - ; Implicit Unsteady
+-4 K-Omega Turbulence
- 5 Multi-Component Liquid
- 1 Liquid Mixture
+- 1 Liquid Components I + - t WaterLake ID 1 I I I DatabaSe *Material
H20 (Water) [Standardlliquids}
1 * -1 Component Properties 1 * - 1 Molecular Weight Melhod Constant 1 1 * -1 Constant :value iD - **
218.0153 .....
. tbnbniof 1 * - 2 Water<:lrculatlng I I I Database _ M aieiial Hg (Mercu.r y) (Standardlliquldsf 1 1 * -1 Component Properties 1 1 * -1 Molecular Weight Melhod . .*consta'nt
! 1 * - 1 Constant Val!'e 18.015J 1bntxno1 I * - 2 Mixture Properties I * - l Density Method "Constant I 1 * - 1 Constant Value 62.0 lb/ft*3 1 * - 2 Dynamic Viscosity _Method . Constant *
-1 Constant Value 0:727E'.9 atm-s
+-3 Molecular Diffusivity Method Schmidt Number 1 I * - 1 Schmidt Number *Schmidt 1iiuniber 219.8 .
1 + - 4 Molecular Weight _l',1ethod Mixtur.8 I I I *-1 Mixture
- 5 Turbulent Schmidt Number Meihod Cons.tani
-1 Constant Value .. 0.9 .
Non-reacting Reynolds-Averaged Navler-Stokes Segregated Flow Minimum Absolute Pressure :o.oogs0g232667160128 aim Flow Boundary Diffusion true Secondary Gradle_nts On Convection *2nd-Order
+- ~ Segregated Species Fiow Boundary Diffusion true Secondary Gradients -
On Convection ** 2nd-order
(_
1 .;. - Jo SST (Menter) K-Omega -a1 0.31 Kappa 0.41 Betastiir
0 09 I I e91a1 . . 0.075 I Sigma_k1 . 0.85 I Slgma_w1 0.5 I
Beta2 -
0.0828 Slgma_k2 1.0 .
Sigma_wi o.8s6 seconda,Y Gradleri.ts ** On Convection *
2nd-order Reall~bllity OpJlon Duibin Scale Limiter .
Compressibility Correction true I I Low Re Damping Modification
false
' No.rmal Stress Term * *
false
Tke..Minimum - 1.0E-10 SdrMinimum 1.0E-10
+ - 1 Compressibility Parameters zeta_star * - 1.5 ..
- : Realizability Coefficient Realizability Coefficient o.eo_goooo23B41.asi!!
+-11 Three Dimensional I * - l ~ Turbulent
- 2 Reference Values I *! -1 Reference Pressure Value 1.0atm
1 * - ;: Minimum Allowable Wall Distance Value 3.28083989501:i123E-O ft
- J Initial Conditions
+- l Pressure -Method Constant I -1 Constant Value O.Oatm *
+-2 Species Mass Fraction Method Constant I * - 1 Constant *value [1 .0. o.oj
+- ~ Species Specification Method Mass fraction
! -1 Turbulence Intensity Method Constant I * -1 Constant Value 0.01
+-5 Turbulence Speciflca llon Meth Cd Intensity + Viscosity Ratio
+- ;; Turbulent Velocity Scale Method _ *constant
1 * - 1 Constant Value 3.280839895013123 fUs .
+-7 Turbulent Viscosity Ratio Method Constant I * -l Constant Value
10.0
- B Velocity Coordinate System Laboratory I Method Constant
-1 Constant Value [O.o. o.o. o.OJ rus
*- 7 Regions Regions 1
( __
- l. Lake Index 0 I Physics Continuum Physics 1 I Type Fluid Region Mesh Continuum Mesh 1 Parts [Lake}
- 1 Boundaries Boundaries 4 1 *-1 FreeSurlace Index 2 Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix J8.3 Revision No. B Anachment J Page J26 o1 J40 Type Symmetry Plane Interfaces
~art Surf~ces (lake.FreeSurtace]
1 1 * - 1 Mesh Conditions i 1 +- 1 Custom Surface Curvature Custom ciirvature *Use Cootinuum Values
+-2 Custom Surface Proximity Custom proximity Use Continuum Values
-3 Custom Surface Size Custom suifai:e size . -. Disable~ * * ** - -
1 * - 4 Customize Surface Remeshing ' Diiiable surtace Remeshl~g Disabled
+-2 Inlet Index* * ** * * * * ** * *
.3 I I Type Mass Fiow friiat*
I *Interfaces I P8". Surfaces. (lake.!nlet] ..
-1 Mesh Conditions 1 * -1 Custom Surface Curvature Cusiom i:urvature Use Continuum Values
+- 2 Custom Surface Proximity Custom proximity Use Continuum Values size 1
1 +-J Custom Surface Size custom surface ' Dlsable<f 1 * -4 Customize Surface Remeshing
Ois~le_Surf<i.i:e. Re~astiing **
Dlsab.il!d
-; Physics Conditions 1 +- 1 Flow Direction Specification Method ** Bounciarv-Norma1
1 1 I +-2 Mass Flow Option sP9C:iiicat1on o?uon .: Mass Flow Rate.
1 1 1 + - ;; Species Specification ' Method - Mass fraction 1 1 * -4 Turbulence Specification Meihod tnten~ity + Viscosity Ratio
-3 Physics Values
+-1 Mass Flow Rate Meihcid *constant 1 * - I Constant Value
5333.7 Ibis
+-2 Species Mass Fraction Meih_o<j coiisiant I * -1 Constant Value -; (0.0, 1.01 ..
+- ; Turbulence Intensity Melhod Constant I * -1 Constant Value 0.01 .
- 4 Turbulent Viscosity Ratio ~ethod_ . coristant -
- 1 Constant Value *10:0 -* -
<* - ~ Outlet Index *4 Ty1>9 -
Pressure 6ut1e-t
Interfaces
.P art Surfaces (Lake.Outlet]
1 1 +- 1 Mesh Conditions
-1 Custom Surface Curvature Custom curvature Use Continuum Values 1 -2 Custom Surface Proximity Custom P.roximity Use Continuum Values
' - } Custom Surface Size Custom surface size Disabled
1 * - 'i Customize Surface Remeshing Disable S~rface Renieshing Disabled t- 2 Physics Conditions 1 + - 1 Backflow Direction Specification Method
Boundary-Normal
+-2 Species Specification . Methcid Mass.fracii'on
+ - ) Target Mass Flow Option *Target Mass Flow Option
Disabled C.
1 1 * -4 Turbulence Specification Method -* * * . Intensity + .Viscosity Rati.o
- 3 Physics Values 1 -1 Pressure Meihoci * -_ Constani 1 * - I Constant Value o.oatm *
+- 2 Species Mass Fraction . Method~ * . constani
+-"
1 * -1 Constant .value - [1.0; 0.0]
Turbulence Intensity Method .. Constant 1 1 I * - l Constant Value 0.01 .
1 1 * -4 Turbulent Vlscosily Ratio Melhl)d . Constant I 1 * -1 Constant Value 10.0
-4 Soil Index 1 I Type .... :w.a11 I Interfaces
f>art_s_u.ifaces [Lake.Soil]
., -1 Mesh Conditions 1 + - 1 Custom Surface Curvature Custom curvature
Use Continuum Values
-2 Custom Surface Proximity Custom proximity
Use Continuum Values*
+ - J Custom Surface Size Custom surface size Disabled 1 * -4 Customize Surface Remeshing Disable.Su.rface Rem.ashing _Disabled
+- 2 Physics Conditions 1 +-J. Shear Stress Specification MethOd .No-Slip 1 +- 2 Tangential Velocity Specification Method Nona I I Reference Frame Relative To Mesh I +- j Wall Species Option Method
impermeable 1 * - 4 Wall Surface Specification Method Rough
- 3 Physics Values 1-1 Blended Wall Function Kappa *o.42 I .E ' 9:0 -
+- 2 Roughness Height Meihod: coiisiant *
-1 Constant Value ' 5.0 In
-1 Wall Roughness Parameters B *o.o c *0.253 Rplus$mooth. 2.25 RplusRough 9ci.o
+ -2 Feature Curves Feature Curves 1 .
1 * -1 Edges Pa~ Cuives * [Lake.Edges)
-1 Mesh Conditions
- 1 Custom Surface Size Custom surface size - .* Disabled
.;.-.J Mesh Conditions 1 * - I Customize Thin Masher Parameters *Cusionih:e Thin Me sher Parameters *use Default Value's
+- 'l Physics Conditions 1 *-1 Initial Condition Option Option Use Continuum Values
+-2 Momentum Source Option Momentum Source Option None
+-:1 Species Source Option Species Source Term Disabled
- 4 Turbulence Source Option T.urbulence Sourc.e Option None
- ~: Physics Values
- I Axis Direction (0.0, 0.0, 1.0]
I Coordinate System Laboratory Project No. 11333-297
Calculallon No. L-002457 A!>pendlx JB.3 Revision No. 8 AttachmentJ Pago J27 of J40 Origin (0.0, 0.0, 0.0] ft
- 2 Motion Specification Motion
stati0nary
Reierenai Frame Lab Referenee.Frame 6 .
-* ~ Derived Parts Derived Parts
I +- 1 HorlzontalCenter Coordlnaie sy5tem Latior.itory I I I :origin [700.0, 1000.0, -1.4999999999999998]
fl,fl,fl Normal [0 .0, 1.0, 0.0) fl,ft,fl Section Mode *Single Section
1 .. - ... .
Displayed Index
Parts * * * * * * [Lake] -
- l Single section oifset * *0.0 . -
' LaboiatciiY soo.o:
1 - 2 Horlzontallnlet .-Coordinate System I I Origin ... [sOo.O, : 1.4999999999999998]
ft,ft,ft - .. . . .
Normal- (0.0, 1.0, 0.0] ft,ft,ft Seciion MOde s ingie 5ecµ?n . **
Dispiayad index *1
.PartS - . . .
I .. !LakeJ ~
- 1 Single section .Offset . *0.0 l*-3 HorlzontalOutlet Coordinate System * .Laboratory .
I I Origin *- . (1050.0, 4000.0, -1 .4g9999g99999999a1 :
ft,ft,ft .
Normal * [o.o, 1 .o~ a*.0111,11,11 Seetion Mcide- Single Section
Displayed Index ,*1 - . ..
PartS . [Lake]
- 1 Single section . ciifset 0.0 ...
- 4 Streamline Seed Type Part I I Rotation Scale 1.0 I I Integration Solver 2nd-Order RK I I Vector Field
Cell Relative VelOcity Parts [lake: FreaSurface]
- 1 Source Seed Seed Parts * [Lake: *FreeSurface]
On Ratio 281 .. .
Randomize false N Grld Points [3ci, 30)
-2 2nd Order Integrator Integration Direction Boih .
Initial .Integration Siep .o.5 Maxlm!Jm Propagation 20.0 Max Steps 2000
+- 5 VertlcalCenter Coordinate System . Laboratory Origin [1050 .0, 2433.0000000000005,.
. 1.4999999999999998] ft,ft,ft
[1.o, o.a*. 0.0111.11.11
(_
I Normal I i Section Mode Single Section I Displayed index* :1 Parts* . .
I JL~~el._ .
- l Single section Offsei * *o.o
- 6 Verticallnlet *Coordin.ate system. Laboratory Origin - - [300.0, 1000*:0. : 1.4999999999999998]
llft,ft Normai [1.0, 0.0, 0.0] ti.It.ft
Section.Mode Single Section Displayed index ' *1 .
Paris * * * (Lake]
- 1 Single section Offset *o.o
- 8 Solvers i*-1 Implicit Unsteady Time-Step 11 .0 s I *Freeze Time .false I Temporal Discretization 1st~rder Solver Frozen * -
false *
- 2 Wall Distance Verbosity .. . o* -
I Parallel memory optimization scaling 1.0
factor I I so1v9r Frozen false I ; - :;. Segregated Flow Reconstruction Frozen false I Reconstrucilon Zeroed .false I .Temporary Storage Re1l3ined fai5e I . Solver Frozen . _ . *false
-l Velocity Under-Relaxation Factor 0.7
- l Under-Relaxation Factor Ramp Ramp Method No Ramp
*-:: AMG Linear Solver Verbosity
None Max Cycles 30 ParaHel Migrati()n Limit _ 25 Extra partition-boundary sweeps 0 Enable direct-solver
false I I Maximum dir9ct~soiver equations 32 I i Convergence Tolerance 0.1 I ! Epsilon o._o I Cycle Type . Flex Cycle I Group Size Control Auto
Group Size ** 4 -
Relaxation Scheme Gauss-Seidel Acceleration method *None Scaling . . Disabled
(
! -l. Flex Cycle Restriction Tolerance 0.9 I I Prolongation Tolerance 0.5 I I i Sweeps 1
- ~ Pressure Under-Relaxation Factor 0.3 I Pressure Reference Location Automatic Selection I ! +-l Under-Relaxation Factor Ramp Ramp Method
No Ramp
*-2 AMG Linear Solver Verbosity None Project No. 11333-297
CaiclJlallon No. L-002457 Appendix J8.3 Revision No. 8 AttachmenlJ P1190 J28 of J40 Max Cycles 30 Parallel Migration Limit . 25 Extra partition-boundary sweeps 0 .
Enable direct-solver false Maximum ~ir.eg-solver equations 32 .
Convergence Tolerance *0 .1 Epsilon *
o.o*
Cycle Type VCycte Group Size Control Auto Groop size * *4 Relaxation Sche,,:,e
Gauss..Se1da1 Accelera.tiori method
conjugate Gradleni".
scaling . * . *~ * * *Auto * *
- 1 V Cycle Pre-Sweeps *1 Post-Sweeps .1 M.X Levels * *so
- *i Segregated Species Under-Relaxeilori Factor 0.9*
Reecmstru_ction Frozen false Reconstruction Zeroed , false
.Temi:>orary Storage Retained *
raise
Solver Frozen * ** *faise
+- 1 Under-Relaxation Factor Ramp Ramp Method *No Ramp *
_,, AMG Linear Solver .Verbosity ** *** Nona
Max cycies *30 .
Parallel Migration Limit 25.
Extra partition-boundary *sweeps 0 E~able. direct-solver.
raise Maximum direct-solver equaUons *32
.Convergence Toleran~e . * ***0.1 Epsilon o.o Cycle Type VCyde Group Size Coniio1 Auto Groiip Size *
4 .
Rela.xation Scheme . Gauss-Seidel
Acceleration method : Nona Scaling Disabled I I -1 VCycle Pre-Sweeps 1 .
I Post-swee?s 1*
I Max Levels 50
- o K-Omega Turbulence Under-Relaxailon Factor
0.8 Reconstruction Frozen *
false Reconstruction. Zeroed . false Temporary Sto.iage Relal.ned false c
Solver Frozen . false
+-1 Under-Relaxation Factor Ramp Ramp Method No Ramp
- 2 AMG Linear Solver Verbosity *
None I *Max Cycles 30 .
I Parallel Migration Limit 25 I Extra partition-boundary sweeps .
. *o .
Enable direct-solver false Maximum direct-solver e<iuauoris 32 .
Convergence Tolerance
0.1 Epsilon 0.0 Cycle Type Flex.Cycle Group Size Control Auto Group s ize _ . 4 .
Relaxation Scheme Gauss:.Seidel Acceleration method None
scaling **
Disabled
-1 Flex Cycle Restriction Tolerance 0.9 Prolongation Tolerance *o.s Sweeps * * . . *
1 .
-< K-Omega Turbulent Viscosity Under-Relaxation Factor 1.0 Maximum Ratio 100000.0 Solver_Froze.n. false
- 1u Stopping Criteria
+- 1 Maximum tnner lteraUons Maximum Inner Iterations .20 .
I Enabled * *
true I Criterion Sallsfia"d true I Logical Rule
Or
+- 2 Maximum Physical Time Maximum Physical Time ' 169122.0 s Enabled * *
true I .Criterion Satisfied true I I Logical Rule Or t-3 Maximum Steps Maximum Steps 1000000000 I Enabled * : true I Criterion satis!'10d
raise Logical Rule
Or .
-4 Stop File Stop Inner Iterations true Path ABORT Enabtiid
true Criterion Satisfied false
Logieal Rule
Or .
- 11 Reports Reports . 8
- 1 ConcentratlonSurfacelakeWater Scalar Field Function MassFraction of Waterlake I Parts [Lake: FreeSurface]
I Smooth Values false I Units
., *. , ConcentratlonVolumeLakeWater Scalar Field Function MassFraction of WaterLake Parts (Lake]
Smooth Values false I I Units
+ - ;\ MassFlow_lnlet Parts [Lake: Inlet)
Project No. 11333-297
CalC>Jlatlon No. L-002457 Appendix JB.3 Revision No. 8 Attachment J Page J29 al J40 Smooth Value.s false I I Units Ibis f.-4 Mass Flow_Outlet Parts *(Lake: *Outlet]
Smooth Values false *
( +- ~ MassFlow_Total Units P*arts Ibis
[Lake: FreeSurface, *Lake: 1n1ei, i.aii:e: *
Outlet, Lake: Soll)
Smooth Values false
Units Ibis
+- 5 Veloclty_Plane4AveVel scalar Field Function
Velocity: Magniiude*
I Parts * [HorizontalCenter)
I *smooth v81ues false I Units . . *!tis
+ - 7 Veloclty_Plana4MaxVel scalar Field Function . Velocity: Magnitude Parts * [HorizontalCenter)
Smooth Vaiues false * *-
Uni ls ftls
-B Veloclty _Plana4MlnVel f Sealar Fie!d u':ti~~ 've10ciiY: Magnitude
Parts . (Honzon.talCenter] **
smoo!f!ya1u8s false Unils "ft/s *
+- 12 Monitors Monitors :*1a*
I I Monitors To Print 1z.:momentuni, waierLake, *s dr, Tke, Y-
momentum, X-momentum, Continuity, Inlet Monitor, Outlet Monitor, Total Monitor, Plane4AveVel Monitor, Plane4MlnVel Monitor. Plane4MaxVel Monitor, ConcentrationSurfaceLakeWater Monilor, ConcentrationVolumeLakeWater Monitor]
Output Direction .. .. _ Horizontal
Heading Print Frequency 10
+- 1 ConcentratlonSurfacelakeWater Monitor
Report * *
ConcentrationSurfaceLakeWater Trigger nmeStep Maximum Plot Samples* 100000 .
Nonnalization Option *off Frequency
i
+- 2 ConcentratlonVolumelakeWater Monitor *Report
CoricentratiiinVoluriieLakeWater Trigger Time Step
Maximum Ploi Samples
100000 NormallzaUon Option
Off c
Frequency
+- ; Inlet Monitor Report MassFlow_lnliit Trigger . Iteration Maximum Plot Samples *5000 Normalization ..Option Off Frequency
+- ; Outlet Monitor Report - *. MassFlow_OuUet Trigger Iteration Maximum .Plot Samples 5000 Normalization Option Off Frequency
+- 5 Plane4AveVel Monitor Report Velocity_P_la_ne4AveVel Trigger Iteration Maximum Ploi Samples
5000 Normalization Option Off Frequency * *1
- o Plane4MaxVel Monitor Report Velocity_:P1ane4MaxVel Trigger
Iteration Maximum Plot Samples 5000 Normalization *option ** Off Frequency
+- 7 Plane4MinVel Monitor Report Velociiy_Plane4MinVel Trigger . .. . . . . *iteration
Maxi.mum Plot Samples *5000 * **
Nonnalizalion Option *
Off .
Frequency * *
~ Total Monitor Report MassFlow_Totai Trigger Iteration
Maximum Piot Samples 5000 Normalization Option Off Frequency 1
< -13 Representations
- l Geometry
+ < Initial Surface Faces si2 I I Edges 154
-1 Regions
-1 Lake *Faces 572 I Edges 154
+- l eoundaries I +-1 FreeSurface Faces . 142 .
+-:e Inlet Faces 2
- 3 Outlet Faces. 2
. - -1 Soil Faces 426 .
- 2 Feature Curves
- 1 Edges Edges 154
+- j Remeshed Surface .Faces 493496 I I Edges 2460 I t - i Regions I -J Lake Faces 493496 I I Edges 2460 Project No. 11 333-297
Calculation No. L.002457 Appondlx J8.3 Revision No. 8 Attaclimont J Pago J30 of J40
+-1 Boundaries I * - 1 FreeSurfaca *Faces 250150 I +-2 Inlet Faces 32
- ~ OuUet Faces 94
( '- *I Soil
**; Feature Curves
- 1 Edges
' Faces 242620 2460
- 4 Volume Mesh 748386 I 2880531 Vertices ..1761870
+-1 Finite Volume Regions
-1 Lake Cells 748386 I Interior Faces '2880831 Vertices ' 1761870
- 1 Finite Volume Boundaries
- 1 FreeSurfaca Faces . . i26581
+-2 Inlet Faces 30 .
+- .! Outlet Faces* 176
-4 Soil Face~ - 126832 Cell Sets
+ - H Coordinate Systems
+-15 Tables
+-.16 Unlls Preferred_Sysiem ** Liriited States custoniary _System.
" - i *1 Field Functions t - 1;, Volume Shapes
-1 Block 1 Coordlnaie System
Laboratory
comer1 [295.00000126147945:
558.9999802156383,
1.4999999696501283] ft,fl,ft Comer2 [304.9999897874246, 576.0, 5.000000159571489] ft,ft ,ft
+- 19 User Code t-£0 Data Set Functions
- ;: l Layouts 1 * -! default
+-22 Data Mappers
+-23 Motions I * -1 Stationary
+-2 *1 Reference Frames I * - 1 lab Reference Frame c
Solution Accumulated CPU Time over all processes (s)641294.4330000208 Elapsed Time (s) 641294.4820000213 Time Level 1947 Solution Time 169122.0 Project No. 11333-297
~ ( \
I I ::u ()
I CI> Ql Residuals :S. 0 CJ) c
,,. iii I => z.
z§l I!I l!ilJ,i! 1 1 ? z I I O>?
II I I II 1,1 I
1 I
1'II 1* '
r:-0 0
1
I .i:.
I 0.1 l.ll JTF'*~1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
---1 I
II llli!li '11!11111111*111 0.01 m _.. n 11 ~~~[ffiffit 1 1111 1utl lltitwll!11i11 I 0.001.
I I I 1E-4:c
-continuity
-x-momentum
...,-0
.2.
e C1l
- Y-momentum Di
n. - Z-momentum 3
(")
~I 1E-6 C1l
_. -- Tke ;a.
_. c_
w -sdr w
Cf I 1E-7 N
t.o
- Waterlake
--.J I 1E-8 1E-9 1E-10 1 E-11
\) )>
Ql -0
<O -0 Cli (!)
w a.
1 E-12 50000 .... )( "
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 0 '-
'- .O>
Iteration -
.i:.""
0
Calculation No. L..002457 Appendix J8.3 Revision No. 8 Attachment J Page J32 of J40
(
volume Average of MassFraction of waterLake Part Value Lake 3.658991e-Ol Total: 3.658991e-01 surface Average of MassFraction of waterLake Part value Lake: Freesurface 4.209259e-Ol Total: 4.209259e-01
(
(
Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix J8.6 Revision No.8 Attachment J Page J33 of J40 Appendix J8.6 Additional information requested by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 27th 2013.
c
References:
1. U.S. N.R.C. letter, "
Subject:
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 - Request for additional information related to license amendment request to technical specification 3.7.3 Ultimate Heat Sink (TAC. NOS. ME9076 and ME9077)", June 27, 2013.
(_
Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix J8.6 Revision No.8 Attachment J Page J34 of J40
( This appendix is added in response to the U.S. N.R.C. request for additional information for the review of CFO and entrance mixing conclusions
[Sec. 6, Ref. 1].
Request "a":
The dimensions of the inlet channel are shown in Figure J-4 in the main body of the calculation . As seen , the channel cross-section is modeled as a rectangular area 8 feet wide and 3.5 feet high, which is an accurate representation of the actual inlet channel. The inlet velocity of the water is equal 3
to approximately 3.07 fUs, which corresponds to 86 ft /s (see Section J.2.1 .5 in the main body of the calculation). This is an accurate modeling of the inlet water velocity based on the dimensions of the discharge channel. The roughness of the bottom of the UHS (including the silt layer) is assumed to be 5 in. As indicated in Assumption J3 .3 in the main body of the calculation , this value does not significantly affect the result of the analysis which is the overall water flow pattern and speed within the UHS .
Figures J.8.6-1 to J.8.6-3 show the nodalization used at the inlet region of the UHS model (see also Section J2.1.4 in the main body of the calculation) .
c Figure J.8.6-1 shows a to-scale perspective side view of the UHS inlet channel.
The dimensions the channel are show in Figure J-4 in the main body of the calculation. Figure J.8.6-2 shows a to-scale perspective bottom view of the same region, while Figure J.8.6-3 shows the mesh at the mid-level plane of the UHS.
Figure J8.6-1 . Detail of the mesh at the inlet boundary (perspective side view)
Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Append ix J8.6 Revision No.8 Attachment J Page J35 of J40
(
Figure J8.6-2. Detail of the mesh at the inlet boundary (perspective bottom view)
(
r----- 100 D----1 Figure J8.6-3 . Detail of the mesh at the inlet boundary (top view of the mid-level plane)
Project No . 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix J8.6 Revision No.8 Attachment J Page J36 of J40 Request "b":
Figures J8.6-4 to J8.6-9 show the fluid velocity at the inlet region (images are to scale) including the top surface, horizontal mid-elevation plane and a vertical cross-section along the inlet channel and UHS (with details of the mesh).
Veloc/ly: Magn/lu de (ft/s) 0.00000 0.62774 1.2555 1.8832 2.5110 3. 1387 Figure J8.6-4. Water velocity on the free surface at inlet region Veloc/1y: Magnitude (ft/ s) 0.00000 0.62756 1.2551 1.8827 2.5102 3. 1378 Figure J8.6-5. Water velocity at the mid-plane of the UHS Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix J8.6 Revision No.8 Attachment J Page J37 of J40
(
Figure JS.6-6. Location of the vertical cross-section across the inlet channel and UHS (used in the figures below)
(
Velocity: Magnitude (ff/$)
0.00000 0 .62956 1.2591 1.8887 2.5183 3. 1478 Figure JS.6-7. Water velocity on the vertical cross section along the inlet channel and UHS (see Figure J.8.6-6). Note: The scale of the y-axis is 3.5 times larger that the scale of the x-axis.
(
Project No . 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix J8.6 Revision No.8 Attachment J Page J38 of J40
(
Velocity: Magnitvde (ft/l) 0.00000 0.1!2956 1.2591 1.8887 2.5183 3. 1478 Figure J8.6-8. Water velocity on the vertical cross section along the inlet channel and UHS (see Figure J.8.6-6) with details of the mesh. Note: The scale of they-axis is 3.5 times larger that the scale of the x-axis.
Velocity: Magnitvde (ft/5) 0.00000 0.62956 1.259 1 1.8887 2.5182 3. 1478 Figure J8.6-9. Water velocity on the vertical cross section along the inlet channel and UHS (see Figure J.8.6-6) with details of the mesh (close-up view of the inlet)
Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix J8.6 Revision No.8 Attachment J Page J39 of J40
( Request "c":
Figure J8.6-10 shows the two recirculation loops at the entry region. The following variables are estimated from the CFO results (see Figure J8.6-10):
3 Mass flow rate in section 81: 184.5 ft /s Mass flow rate in section 82: 52.4 ft 3/s ( -61 % of plant flow to the UH8)
Mass flow rate in section S3: 46.1 ft 3/s ( -54% of plant flow to the UHS)
Mass flow rate entering the UH8: 86.0 ft 3/s Mean return period in Loop A: -1 hour Mean return period in Loop B: -14 hours
(
Figure J8.6-10. Recirculation loops at the entry region Project No. 11333-297
Calculation No. L-002457 Appendix JB.6 Revision No.8 Attachment J Page J40 of J40
( Request "d":
The use of constant density fluid and thermal stratification effects in the UHS are addressed in Attachment N, Section N6.4.
The purpose of the CFO analysis is to evaluate the water flow pattern in the man-made Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) at LaSalle County Generating and to provide effective lake volume and surface area for use in the S&L LAKET-PC computer program. Recirculation regions are present in the UHS due to its shape, which causes the water to flow in a non-straight path. Since water can be practically considered an incompressible fluid, the average velocity distribution within the UHS is governed by the conservation of mass. Changes in average water temperatures within the range of expected values (-100°F to 120°F) produce small changes in water properties and thus may marginally affect the local water velocity distribution. However, these changes would not cause a significant change in the UHS overall water flow pattern and thus to the size of the recirculation regions. Therefore, the results of the CFO calculation are insignificantly affected by a change in water temperature.
c Project No. 11333-297

v t e Letter Sequence Supplement
EPID:L-2020-LLA-0165, Supplement Regarding Request to Withhold Information Related to License (Approved, Closed)
Initiation Request, Request Acceptance, Acceptance Supplement, Supplement Administration Withholding Request Acceptance Questions 8 March 2021 18 March 2021 Answers 7 April 2021 16 April 2021 Results Approval Other: ML21008A327, ML21008A328
MONTHYEAR2020-09-11 [Table View]

RS-20-135, Supplement Regarding Request to Withhold Information Related to License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 3.7.3, Ultimate Heat Sink

Text

Subject:

References:

Attachment:

Title:

5.0 REFERENCES

5.0 REFERENCES

Subject:

7.0 CONCLUSION

References:

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search