RNP-RA/06-0048, Request for Technical Specifications, Change Related to Containment Peak Pressure

Request for Technical Specifications, Change Related to Containment Peak Pressure

ML062000095
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	07/17/2006
From:	Lucas J Progress Energy Carolinas
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RNP-RA/06-0048
Download: ML062000095 (109)

Text

10 CFR 50.90 a Progress Energy Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 JUL 1 7 2006 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261/LICENSE NO. DPR-23 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE RELATED TO CONTAINMENT PEAK PRESSURE Ladies and Gentlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50.90, Carolina Power and Light Company, also known as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC), is submitting a request for an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) contained in Appendix A of the Operating License for H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP),

Unit No. 2.

The proposed change is required as a result of a revised Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) containment pressure analysis. The revised analysis calculated a peak containment pressure following a LOCA (designated as Pa in the TS) of 41.49 psig, which is greater than the current TS value for Pa of 40.5 psig. Therefore, the value for Pa, as well as other values based on a multiple of Pa in the TS, need to be revised. The proposed change will define Pa as the containment design pressure of 42 psig, which is conservative compared to the revised post-LOCA peak pressure of 41.49 psig.

NRC review and approval is requested for both the proposed TS change and the revised post-LOCA containment analysis. The revised analysis will be incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report as the revised licensing basis. Corresponding changes will also be made to the Technical Specifications Bases in accordance with the Bases Control Program.

Attachment I provides an Affirmation as required by 10 CFR 50.30(b).

Attachment II provides a description of the current condition and proposed change, justification for the proposed change, a No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and an Environmental Impact Consideration.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 3581 West Entrance Road Hartsville, SC 29550

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 Page 2 of 2 Attachment III provides a markup of the affected TS pages.

Attachment IV provides a retyped version of the affected TS pages.

Attachment V provides the Westinghouse report of the revised containment analysis.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b), a copy of this license amendment request is being provided to the State of South Carolina.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval of the proposed license amendment by March 9, 2007, is requested, based on the desire to revise the containment leak rate testing procedures prior to the upcoming Refueling Outage 24, which is currently scheduled to start on April 7, 2007.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. C. T. Baucom at (843) 857-1253.

Sincerely, Manager - Support Services - Nuclear Attachments:

I. Affirmation II. Request for Technical Specifications Change Related to Containment Peak Pressure III. Markup of Technical Specifications Pages IV. Retyped Technical Specifications Pages V. Westinghouse Licensing Report for H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Containment Analysis RAC/rac c: Mr. T. P. O'Kelley, Director, Bureau of Radiological Health (SC)

Mr. H. J. Porter, Director, Division of Radioactive Waste Management (SC)

Dr. W. D. Travers, NRC, Region II Mr. C. P. Patel, NRC, NRR NRC Resident Inspector, HBRSEP Attorney General (SC)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attachment I to Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 Page 1 of 1 AFFIRMATION The information contained in letter RNP-RA/06-0048 is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief; and the sources of my information are officers, employees, contractors, and agents of Carolina Power and Light Company, also known as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed On: r I zoo&LL p_ __.

T. D. Walt Vice President, HBRSEP, Unit No. 2

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attachment II to Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 Page 1 of 4 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE RELATED TO CONTAINMENT PEAK PRESSURE Description of Current Condition and Proposed Change The current Technical Specifications (TS) include requirements based on the calculated peak containment internal pressure following a design basis Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). This value is designated as Pa and is currently specified as 40.5 psig. Revised containment analyses by Westinghouse for H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, have resulted in an increase in the calculated peak containment pressure following a LOCA to 41.49 psig. In lieu of using the specifically calculated pressure of 41.49 psig, the value for Pa is being changed to the containment design pressure of 42 psig, which is slightly greater than the calculated peak containment pressure following a LOCA or a Main Steam Line Break (MSLB).

The TS Sections impacted are:

1. TS Section 3.6.8, "Isolation Valve Seal Water System" Surveillance Requirements 3.6.8.1 and 3.6.8.5 contain pressure requirements specified as 44.6 psig. This value is based on 1.1 times the existing Pa of 40.5 psig. Since Pa is being revised to 42 psig, the values in the two surveillance requirements are being increased to 46.2 psig.

2. TS Section 5.5.16, "Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program" This section defines Pa as the peak calculated containment internal pressure for the design basis loss of coolant accident and specifies a value of 40.5 psig. It is being revised to specify Pa as the containment design pressure of 42 psig.

Justification for the Proposed Change The proposed change is necessary based on a revision to the post-LOCA containment analysis.

Westinghouse has reanalyzed the containment analysis due to some non-conservatisms discovered in the current analysis. These non-conservatisms only impacted the LOCA analysis and not the MSLB analysis. The revised analysis increases the peak post-LOCA containment pressure from 40.5 psig to 41.49 psig. A copy of the Westinghouse report of the revised analysis is provided as Attachment V.

The TS sections listed above need to be corrected based on the revised analysis. Rather than replace the value of 40.5 psig with the new value of 41.5 psig, Pa is being conservatively defined as equal to the containment design pressure of 42 psig.

The revised analysis does not require changes to the existing surveillance procedure test pressures.

Current surveillances of containment leakage (both integrated leakage rate testing and local leakage

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attachment II to Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 Page 2 of 4 rate testing) have been performed at pressures in excess of 42 psig. Current surveillances of the Isolation Valve Seal Water System have been performed at pressures in excess of 46.2 psig.

Therefore, the current plant procedures and current plant conditions are consistent with the proposed change. The proposed change will ensure the TS are consistent with a more conservative analysis.

No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination Carolina Power and Light Company, also known as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., is proposing a change to Appendix A, Technical Specifications, of Facility Operating License No. DPR-23, for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP), Unit No. 2. The proposed change revises the definition and specified value for the peak containment pressure (Pa) calculated to occur following a design basis Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) as described in Technical Specifications Section 5.5.16, "Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program." Additionally, the specified pressure values for surveillance requirements in Technical Specifications Section 3.6.8, "Isolation Valve Seal Water System," are revised to a value equal to 1.1 times the revised Pa. The proposed change will also revise the licensing basis analysis for the post-LOCA containment pressure and temperature for HBRSEP, Unit No. 2.

An evaluation of the proposed change has been performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1) regarding no significant hazards considerations using the standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A discussion of these standards as they relate to this amendment request follows:

1. Do the Proposed Changes Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated?

No. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The revised post-LOCA containment pressure and temperature analysis used more conservative assumptions and the increase in the calculated peak pressure was approximately I psig. The revised value of 41.49 psig remains less than the containment design pressure of 42 psig. The increase in the calculated peak temperature was approximately 2°F, which was analyzed to have no impact on structures or equipment. Although there is an increase in the calculated pressure, the allowable containment leakage rate, as measured at the peak pressure, is not being changed.

Since there is no increase in the allowable leakage, there is no increase in consequences.

The proposed change is related to containment pressure analysis. There are no physical changes being made to the plant, or to the manner in which the plant is operated.

Surveillance procedures for containment leakage have been conservatively testing at pressures in excess of 42 psig and surveillance procedures for the Isolation Valve Seal Water System have been conservatively testing at pressures in excess of 46.2 psig. The change can have no impact on the probability of an accident occurring. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attachment II to Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 Page 3 of 4

2. Do the Proposed Changes Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated?

No. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. There are no physical changes being made to the plant or to the manner in which the plant is operated. Surveillance procedures for containment leakage have been conservatively testing at pressures in excess of 42 psig and surveillance procedures for the Isolation Valve Seal Water System have been conservatively testing at pressures in excess of 46.2 psig. The revised containment analysis results in a calculated peak containment pressure that remains less than the containment design pressure. The increase in the calculated peak temperature was analyzed to have no impact on structures or equipment. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Do the Proposed Changes Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety?

No. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The proposed change imposes more conservative surveillance test requirements. The calculated increase in post-LOCA peak containment pressure is only I psig and the revised value of 41.49 psig remains less than the containment design pressure of 42 psig. The increase in the calculated peak temperature was approximately 2°F, which was analyzed to have no impact on structures or equipment. Although there was an increase in the calculated pressure, the allowable containment leakage rate, as measured at the peak pressure, is not being changed. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety for HBRSEP, Unit No. 2.

Based on the preceding discussion, it has been determined that the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Environmental Impact Consideration 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) provides criteria for identification of licensing and regulatory actions for categorical exclusion from performing an environmental assessment. A proposed change for an operating license for a facility requires no environmental assessment if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change would not (1) involve a significant hazards consideration; (2) result in a significant change in the types or significant increases in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (3) result in a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Carolina Power and Light Company has reviewed this request and determined that the proposed change meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

The basis for this determination follows:

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attachment II to Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 Page 4 of 4 Proposed Change Carolina Power and Light Company is proposing a change to Appendix A, Technical Specifications, of Facility Operating License No. DPR-23, for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP), Unit No. 2. The proposed change revises the definition and specified value for the peak containment pressure (Pa) calculated to occur following a design basis Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) as described in Technical Specifications Section 5.5.16, "Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program." Additionally, the specified pressure values for surveillance requirements in Technical Specifications Section 3.6.8, "Isolation Valve Seal Water System," are revised to a value equal to 1.1 times the revised P,,. The proposed change will also revise the licensing basis analysis for the post-LOCA containment pressure and temperature for HBRSEP, Unit No. 2.

Basis The proposed change meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) for the following reasons:

1. As demonstrated in the No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

2. The proposed change is related to post-accident calculation results and to surveillance test criteria. Containment leak rate limits remain the same. The proposed change does not affect the generation or control of effluents. Therefore, the proposed change will not result in a significant change in the types or significant increases in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

3. The proposed change will not cause a significant increase in occupational radiation exposure. There are no proposed physical changes to the facility. There is only a minor change in a surveillance test condition. Current surveillance procedures already test at this modified condition and hence there should be no impact on the occupational dose to perform the surveillance test. Therefore, the proposed change will not result in a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attachment III to Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 4 Pages (including cover page)

H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE RELATED TO CONTAINMENT PEAK PRESSURE MARKUP OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PAGES

Isolation Valve Seal Water System 3.6.8 3.6 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS 3.6.8 Isolation Valve Seal Water (IVSW) System LCO 3.6.8 The IVSW System shall be OPERABLE.

APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4.

ACTIONS CONDITION REQUIRED ACTION COMPLETION TIME A. IVSW system A.1 Restore IVSW system 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> inoperable, to OPERABLE status.

B. Required Action B.1 Be in MODE 3. 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and associated Completion Time AND not met.

B.2 Be in MODE 5. 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY SR 3.6.8.1 Verify IVSW tank pressure is ; 44-6 46.2 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> psig. I SR 3.6.8.2 Verify the IVSW tank volume is 31 days 85 gallons.

(continued)

HBRSEP Unit No. 2 3.6-20 Amendment No. 176 187

Isolation Valve Seal Water System 3.6.8 SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (continued)

SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY SR 3.6.8.3 Verify the opening time of each air In accordance operated header injection valve is within with the limits. Inservice Testing Program SR 3.6.8.4 Verify each automatic valve in the IVSW 18 months System actuates to the correct position on an actual or simulated actuation signal.

SR 3.6.8.5 Verify the IVSW dedicated nitrogen 18 months bottles will pressurize the IVSW tank to

. 44. 46.2 psig.

SR 3.6.8.6 Verify IVSW seal header flow rate is: 18 months

a.

• 52.00 cc/minute for Header A,

b.

• 16.50 cc/minute for Header B,

c.

• 32.50 cc/minute for Header C, and

d.

• 23.00 cc/minute for Header D.

HBRSEP Unit No. 2 3.6-21 Amendment No. 176 ,87

Programs and Manuals 5.5 5.5 Programs and Manuals 5.5.16 Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program This program provides controls for implementation of the leakage rate testing of the containment as required by 10 CFR 50.54(o) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Option B, as modified by approved exemptions for Type A testing. This program shall be in accordance with the guidelines contained in Regulatory Guide 1.163, "Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program," dated September 1995, as modified by the following exception:

a. NEI 94 1995, Section 9.2.3: The first Type A test performed after the April 9, 1992, Type A test shall be performed no later than April 9, 2007.

Type B and C testing shall be implemented in the program in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Option A.

The peak containment pressure, Pa, is specified as the containment design pressure of 42 psig, which exceeds -the peak calculated containment internal pressure for the design basis loss of coolant accident,--Pa, is 40.5 psig.

The maximum allowable containment leakage rate, La, at Pa, shall be 0.1% ofthe containment air weight per day.

Leakage rate acceptance criteria are:

a. Containment leakage rate acceptance criteria is

• 1.0 La.

During the first unit startup following testing in accordance with this program, the leakage rate acceptance criteria are

• 0.60 La for the Type B and Type C tests, and

. 0.75 La for Type A tests.

The provisions of SR 3.0.3 are applicable to the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program.

(continued)

HBRSEP Unit No. 2 5.0-24 Amendment No. 499

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attachment IV to Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 4 Pages (including cover page)

H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE RELATED TO CONTAINMENT PEAK PRESSURE RETYPED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PAGES

Isolation Valve Seal Water System 3.6.8 3.6 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS 3.6.8 Isolation Valve Seal Water (IVSW) System LCO 3.6.8 The IVSW System shall be OPERABLE.

APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4.

ACTIONS CONDITION REQUIRED ACTION COMPLETION TIME A. IVSW system A.1 Restore IVSW system 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> inoperable, to OPERABLE status.

B. Required Action B.1 Be in MODE 3. 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and associated Completion Time AND not met.

B.2 Be in MODE 5. 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY SR 3.6.8.1 Verify IVSW tank pressure is > 46.2 psig. 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> I

SR 3.6.8.2 Verify the IVSW tank volume is 31 days 85 gallons.

(continued)

HBRSEP Unit No. 2 3.6-20 Amendment No.

Isolation Valve Seal Water System 3.6.8 SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (continued)

SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY SR 3.6.8.3 Verify the opening time of each air In accordance operated header injection valve is within with the limits. Inservice Testing Program SR 3.6.8.4 Verify each automatic valve in the IVSW 18 months System actuates to the correct position on an actual or simulated actuation signal.

SR 3.6.8.5 Verify the IVSW dedicated nitrogen 18 months bottles will pressurize the IVSW tank to

!46.2 psig.

SR 3.6.8.6 Verify IVSW seal header flow rate is: 18 months

a.

• 52.00 cc/minute for Header A,

b.

• 16.50 cc/minute for Header B,

c. . 32.50 cc/minute for Header C, and

d.

• 23.00 cc/minute for Header D.

HBRSEP Unit No. 2 3.6-21 Amendment No.

Programs and Manuals 5.5 5.5 Programs and Manuals 5.5.16 Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program This program provides controls for implementation of the leakage rate testing of the containment as required by 10 CFR 50.54(o) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Option B, as modified by approved exemptions for Type A testing. This program shall be in accordance with the guidelines contained in Regulatory Guide 1.163, "Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program," dated September 1995, as modified by the following exception:

a. NEI 94 1995, Section 9.2.3: The first Type A test performed after the April 9, 1992, Type A test shall be performed no later than April 9, 2007.

Type B and C testing shall be implemented in the program in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Option A.

The peak containment pressure, Pa, is specified as the containment design pressure of 42 psig, which exceeds the peak calculated containment internal pressure for the design basis loss of coolant accident.

The maximum allowable containment leakage rate, La, at Pa, shall be 0.1t of the containment air weight per day.

Leakage rate acceptance criteria are:

a. Containment leakage rate acceptance criteria is . 1.0 La.

During the first unit startup following testing in accordance with this program, the leakage rate acceptance criteria are

• 0.60 La for the Type B and Type C tests, and g 0.75 La for Type A tests.

The provisions of SR 3.0.3 are applicable to the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program.

5.0-24 Amendment No.

No. 2 Unit No.

HBRSEP Unit 2 5.0-24 Amendment No.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attachment V to Serial: RNP-RA/06-0048 94 Pages (including cover page)

H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE RELATED TO CONTAINMENT PEAK PRESSURE WESTINGHOUSE LICENSING REPORT FOR H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2, CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Attachment 2 LICENSING REPORT FOR H.B. ROBINSON NUCLEAR PLANT I

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 INTRODUCTION The design and licensing of nuclear power plants require that the containment be analyzed for pressure and temperature effects. The analyses include pressure and temperature transients to which the containment might be exposed as a result of postulated reactor coolant system pipe breaks. Containment integrity analyses are performed for dry containment designs to quantify the margin in the containment design pressure and in the peak temperature and pressure for equipment environmental qualification (EQ), and to demonstrate the acceptability of the containment safeguards equipment to mitigate the postulated transient.

This report presents revised mass & energy releases for postulated Loss-of-Coolant (LOCA) accident due to Westinghouse identified issues (Reference 5) with respect to the Reference 4 analysis. In Reference 5, Westinghouse provided a discussion of the following issues that affected the H. B. Robinson Unit No.2 (HBRSEP Unit No.2)

Reference 4 analysis.

1) Area of the downcomer in the REFLOOD code

2) Area of the upper plenum in the FROTH code

3) Definitions for other FROTH inputs

4) Commitments made within WCAP-10325 and SER

5) Main feedwater addition following a reactor trip

6) Considerations for AFW system purge and unisolatable volumes

7) Inadequate definition of required AFW flow for the FROTH code

8) Possibility of asymmetric AFW flow These issues, with the exception of Issue #4, involve input values and methods used in performing the LOCA mass and energy release analyses. As such, application of the models described in References 2 and 10 have not been affected. Reference 3 has provided the NRC review of the Issue #4 issue which has been resolved without a need to change the Reference 2 model. A detailed description of the issues, taken from Reference 5, is provided below.

1) AREA OF THE DOWNCOMER IN THE REFLOOD CODE Westinghouse designed reactors can be divided into downflow and upflow barrel baffle designs. The guidance for calculating the downcomer area for downflow plants was determined to be incorrect. When the calculation was corrected, a larger downcomer area and thus volume for downflow plants was calculated. This resulted in a longer 2

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 time being required for the ECCS to completely fill the downcomer. Sensitivity studies showed that the effect on LOCA mass and energy release, as determined by the resulting effect on the containment pressure, was small. A correction to the HBRSEP Unit No.2 input model was required to address this issue. This correction does not affect the application or the NRC approval of the Reference 2 model.

2) AREA OF THE UPPER PLENUM IN THE FROTH CODE The FROTH computer program is run in-conjunction with the REFLOOD computer program and calculates the LOCA mass and energy releases for the post-reflood period until the steam generator secondary side pressure(s) is calculated to equilibrate at the containment design pressure. During this time period, the two-phase mixture levels in the core, upper plenum, hot leg and steam generator inlet plenum are the principle parameters of interest. It was determined that in certain instances the cross-sectional area of the upper plenum (AUPP) was being over predicted, which resulted in a reduction in entrainment to the steam generators and thus less steam production.

Correction of the upper plenum area results in increased mass and energy releases and a penalty for the calculated containment pressure. A correction to the HBRSEP Unit No.2 input model was required to address this issue. This correction does not affect the application or the NRC approval of the Reference 2 and 10 evaluation models.

3) DEFINITION FOR OTHER FROTH INPUTS A review of the FROTH code input variables showed that ASGP, the steam generator (SG) inlet plenum flow area, which is used to calculate the void fraction in the SG inlet plenum, was based on a value that was too small. A review of SG geometry for the inlet plena determined a more appropriate method for calculating ASGP. The result was a larger flow area and a reduction in entrained liquid. The reduction in entrained liquid reduces the mass and energy released post-reflood, and is a benefit for the calculated containment pressure. A correction to the HBRSEP Unit No.2 input model was required to address this issue. This correction does not affect the application or the NRC approval of the Reference 2 and 10 evaluation models.

4) COMMITMENTS MADE WITHIN WCAP-10325 AND SER The Westinghouse LOCA mass and energy (M&E) release model described in WCAP-10325-P-A (Reference 2) was approved in February 1987 (Reference 21) and has been used to calculate the LOCA mass and energy releases for almost all Westinghouse designed PWRs. As a result of a Westinghouse review of these models, the need to clarify two model features was identified. These are the assumptions placed on the steam generator exit steam enthalpy during the post-reflood period and the assumed power level used in the LOCA M&E analysis. These differences have been determined to be very small relative to the overall conservatism of the analysis. However, since these two model features are applied differently than approved, NRC reporting was deemed to be necessary. These issues were clarified with NRC informally by telephone on May 26, 2005, and followed-up formally with Reference 19. Reference 3 is the NRC's 3

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 SER addressing these issues and has determined that no changes to the current model described in Reference 2 are required.

5) MAIN FEEDWATER ADDITION FOLLOWING A REACTOR TRIP Reference 2 indicates that Westinghouse will account for the addition of main feedwater (MFW) to the steam generator secondaries following a LOCA in the time frame from reactor trip until main feedwater isolation is calculated to occur. The recent methodology review called into question the current modeling of the isolation of the SG secondary side on a reactor trip signal. The continued addition of MFW after reactor trip is adding energy to the secondary side above 212°F and therefore in the long-term this additional energy will be released to the containment. Depending upon the time at which peak containment pressure is calculated, a penalty to peak pressure may occur.

Sensitivity studies have shown either a penalty or a benefit when MFW addition after reactor trip is modeled. A correction to the HBRSEP Unit No.2 input model was required to address this issue. This correction does not affect the application or the NRC approval of the Reference 2 and 10 LOCA mass and energy release models.

6) CONSIDERATIONS FOR AFW SYSTEM PURGE & UNISOLATABLE VOLUMES After isolation of the main feedwater (MFW), a volume of hot MFW will reside in the main feed lines between the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) injection point and the SG secondary side. Once AFW flow is initiated, the hot MFW water will be pushed into the SG secondary side. As the steam generators are calculated to depressurize, there may be additional volume trapped between the AFW injection point and the MFW isolation valve that will flash and be pushed into the SG secondary. These two concerns were not considered in the References 1 & 2 LOCA mass and energy release models. Addition of these effects to the LOCA mass and energy release calculation has been shown to increase the total energy released to containment and results in a penalty to the calculated containment pressure. The HBRSEP Unit No.2 AFW purge and unisolatable volumes were not modeled in this analysis. Instead the more conservative approach of not crediting the cold Auxiliary Feedwater flow was used.

7) INADEQUATE DEFINITION OF REQUIRED AFW FLOW FOR FROTH CODE In recent data requests to support new LOCA mass and energy release analyses, minimum auxiliary feedwater flow, post-LOCA, is one of the items requested. In some cases, the actual flow used in the analysis assumed that the flow provided was per steam generator, instead of the total flow to all steam generators. This resulted in flow that was high, and therefore a non-conservative low energy release to containment. For plants that currently do not credit any AFW flow during the post-reflood period, there is no impact on the analysis results. For plants that credit too large of an AFW flow, this results in a penalty to the calculated containment pressure. This analysis used the more conservative approach of not crediting the cold Auxiliary Feedwater flow.

4

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3

8) POSSIBILITY OF ASYMMETRIC AFW FLOW LOCA analyses are performed assuming that off-site power is lost coincident with the LOCA with the limiting single failure of one diesel generator to start. If the plant design does not start the turbine driven AFW pump on the loss of offsite power or an SI signal, then the typical design will have one motor driven AFW pump in operation which generally will not feed all steam generators. Thus, one or more steam generators may not receive any AFW flow. In some cases, the flow used in the analysis assumed that the flow provided was per steam generator, even though not all steam generators would receive flow. This resulted in flow that was high, and therefore a non-conservative low energy release to containment. The current LOCA mass and energy release models do not contain a provision to model asymmetric AFW flow. Instead, this effect is bounded by the assumption of no AFW delivery. For plants that model AFW flow, and if asymmetric flow is possible, this results in a penalty to the calculated containment pressure. Since it is possible to have asymmetric AFW flow at HBRSEP Unit No.2, the conservative approach of not crediting the cold Auxiliary Feedwater flow was used in this new analysis.

Additional Changes not Reported in Reference 5 Other changes to the HBRSEP Unit No.2 LOCA mass and energy input model were made in performing the new analysis but were not reported in Reference 5 since these changes have little effect on the results and in some instances result in a lower calculated peak pressure. These are:

9) Input Modification Program values for SG Outlet Nozzle Hydraulic Diameter and Flow Area.

10) Reactor Coolant Pump Rated Data used in the Input Modification Program.

The Input Modification Program is a data base of generically applicable data used to develop the plant specific input model. Data collection for the steam generator outlet nozzle and the reactor coolant pump rated conditions of head, flow, torque and moment of inertia were discovered to have in some instances incorrect data. These items were corrected in this new analysis for H. B. Robison.

Additionally, the plant changes previously evaluated in References 17 and 18 have been incorporated into the new analysis. The corresponding containment response is also provided.

Reference 5 has stated that only the Double Ended Pump Suction (DEPS) break with minimum ECCS flow needs to be re-analyzed. The Double Ended Hot Leg (DEHL) break, which calculates a peak pressure to occur during blowdown could only be affected by the post-LOCA addition of main feedwater. However, since main feedwater 5

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 addition could cool the steam generator secondary side during blowdown, the transfer of heat from secondary to primary would be reduced and thus less energy would be released out the break. Further, the timing of key events for reactor trip, containment high and high-high signals, which are used to activate safety systems will not be affected since these occur very early in the transient before MFW addition could introduce an appreciable effect. Thus, the DEHL break is considered to be unaffected by the reported issues.

The DEPS break with maximum ECCS flows, while affected, has not been reanalyzed since the results for this break are well below the DEPS case with minimum ECCS flows.

In the Reference 4 analysis, the DEPS maximum ECCS case was 2.33 psi below the DEPS minimum ECCS case. This delta is greater than the sum of the effects seen for the DEPS minimum ECCS case (e.g. 0.99 psi). Thus, a reanalysis of the DEPS maximum ECCS case is not expected to exceed the results calculated for the DEPS minimum ECCS case.

Thus, only this single break has been re-analyzed. However, this report will provide again the results previously provided in Reference 4 for the Double Ended Hot Leg (DEHL) break and the DEPS break with maximum ECCS flows. Therefore, included in the body of this report is a discussion of the input parameters and assumptions, methodology, analyses, acceptance criteria, and the results for HBRSEP Unit No.2.

Long-Term LOCA Mass and Energy Releases Introduction Discussed in this section are the long-term LOCA mass and energy releases for the hypothetical double-ended pump suction (DEPS) and double-ended hot leg (DEHL) break cases. The mass and energy release rates described in this section form the basis of further computations to evaluate the containment response following the postulated LOCA.

A total of three LOCA mass and energy release cases are presented. However, only the Double Ended Pump Suction break with minimum ECCS flow assumptions has been re-analyzed. These cases addressed two different break locations; the double-ended hot leg break and the double-ended pump suction break (see "Break Size & Location," for a detailed explanation). The above two break locations were analyzed for both minimum and maximum safeguards (i.e. minimum and maximum pumped ECCS flows). The minimum ECCS cases were performed to address maximum available steam release (minimizing steam condensation) and the maximum ECCS cases were performed to address the effects of maximizing mass flow and subsequent effect on containment response. Reference 2 has provided justification that these analyses encompass the most limiting assumptions for break location and safeguards operation.

The limiting long-term LOCA mass and energy releases are extended out in time to approximately 1 million seconds and are utilized as input to the containment response analysis, which demonstrates the acceptability of the containment design, EQ limits, and 6

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 containment safeguards systems to mitigate the consequences of a hypothetical large break LOCA. The containment safeguards systems must be capable of limiting the peak containment pressure to less than the design pressure and to limit the temperature and pressure excursion to below the Environmental Qualification (EQ) limits.

Input Parameters and Assumptions The mass and energy release analysis is sensitive to the assumed characteristics of various plant systems; some of the most-critical items are the RCS initial conditions, core decay heat, accumulators, ECCS flow, and primary and secondary metal mass and steam generator heat release modeling. Specific assumptions concerning each of these items are discussed in this section. Tables 1 through 3 present key data assumed in the analysis. All input parameters are determined based on NRC accepted methodology (References 2 and 3).

Initial Power Level The initial power level is assumed to be 2346 MWt which is 100.3% of the rated thermal power (2339 MWt) (adjusted for a calorimetric error of 0.3%) for HBRSEP Unit No.2. A maximum initial power is conservative for maximizing the mass and energy releases, with respect to reactor coolant system (RCS) temperature, available decay heat energy and initial core stored energy.

Initial RCS Temperature and Pressure Initial RCS temperatures are chosen to bound the highest average coolant temperature range of all operating cases. The initial THoT (vessel outlet temperature) of 610.3°F and initial TcOLD (core inlet temperature) of 548.5°F (which includes +4.0°F for instrument error and deadband, Reference 15) were modeled. The use of the higher temperatures is conservative because the initial fluid energy is based on coolant temperatures which are at the maximum levels attained in steady state operation. This position on RCS temperatures was originally established in Reference 10. The RCS pressure is based upon a nominal value of 2250 psia plus an allowance (+30 psi, Reference 15) which accounts for the measurement uncertainty on pressurizer pressure. This assumption only affects the blowdown phase results. The rate at which the RCS blows down is initially more severe at the higher RCS pressure. Additionally the RCS has a higher fluid density at the higher pressure (assuming a constant temperature) and subsequently has a higher RCS mass available for releases. (Note: The RCS initial temperatures were conservatively based upon Steam Generator Tube Plugging (SGTP) level of 0%)

Steam Generator Model A uniform steam generator tube plugging level of 0% is modeled. This assumption maximizes the reactor coolant volume and fluid release by virtue of consideration of the RCS fluid in all tubes. During the post-blowdown period the steam generators are active heat sources since significant energy remains in the secondary metal and secondary mass that has the potential to be transferred to the primary side. The 0% tube 7

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 plugging assumption maximizes heat transfer area and therefore the transfer of secondary heat across the SG tubes. Additionally, this assumption reduces the reactor coolant loop resistance, which reduces the pressure drop upstream of the break for the pump suction breaks and increases break flow. Thus, the analysis conservatively accounts for the level of steam generator plugging by using 0%.

Secondary to primary heat transfer is maximized by assuming conservative coefficients of heat transfer (i.e., steam generator primary/secondary heat transfer and reactor coolant system metal heat transfer). Maximum secondary to primary heat transfer is ensured by maximizing the initial steam generator mass based upon 100% power conditions and then increasing this by 10% to maximize the available energy. The 10%

uncertainty addresses uncertainties in SG secondary side volume calculations, and several sources of level measurement errors.

Fuel Design - Core Stored Energy Core stored energy is the amount of energy in the fuel rods above the local coolant temperature. The selection of the fuel design features for the long-term mass and energy release calculation are based on the need to conservatively maximize the energy stored in the fuel at the beginning of the postulated accident. The following fuel features are considered, 1) Rod Geometry, 2) Rod Power, and 3) Limiting time in life (eg. Burnup).

The Core Stored Energy supplied in Reference 16 was used in this analysis. Core stored energy is addressed in the analysis as full power seconds.

Core Decay Heat Model The American Nuclear Society (ANS) Standard 5.1 was used in the LOCA M&E release model for HBRSEP Unit No.2 for the determination of decay heat energy. This standard was balloted by the Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee (NUPPSCO) in October 1978 and subsequently approved. The official standard was issued in August 1979.

Significant assumptions in the generation of the decay heat curve for use in design basis containment integrity LOCA analyses include:

1. Decay heat sources considered are fission product decay and heavy element decay of U-239 and Np-239.

2. Decay heat power from fissioning isotopes other than U-235 is assumed to be identical to that of U-235.

3. Fission rate is constant over the operating history of maximum power level.

4. The factor accounting for neutron capture in fission products has been taken from Table 10, of Reference 6.

5. The fuel has been assumed to be at full power for 108 seconds.

6. The total recoverable energy associated with one fission has been assumed to be 200 MeV/fission.

8

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3

7. Two sigma uncertainty (two times the standard deviation) has been applied to the fission product decay.

Based upon NRC staff review, the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) of the March 1979 evaluation model (Reference 2), the use of the ANS Standard-5.1, August 1979 decay heat model was approved for the calculation of mass and energy releases to the containment following a loss-of-coolant accident. Table 19 provides the Decay Heat Curve.

In 1996, the NRC issued an information notice (Reference 7) regarding the use of the ANS 5.1 decay heat standard. The following items address that information notice:

1. The comparisons presented in the information notice are for Peak Cladding Temperature only. Even though decay effects are illustrated, there is no mention of LOCA Mass and Energy Releases and Containment Response calculations.

However, there is the implied impact on any analysis that has utilized the ANS standard.

2. For LOCA mass and energy, the current methodology (WCAP-10325-P-A)

(Reference 2) utilizes the ANS Standard 5.1 for the determination of the decay heat.

The input utilized is called out on page 2-10 of the WCAP. The model, including the decay heat model, has been approved (letter from C. E. Rossi of NRC to W. J.

Johnson of Westinghouse, dated 2/17/87, which is included with Reference 2.)

3. For LOCA mass and energy, the ANS 5.1 standard is used in the selection of inputs.

Power history, initial fuel enrichment, and neutron flux level, which are called out in the information notice, are also called out in Reference 2.

Reactor Coolant System Fluid Energy Margin in RCS fluid volume of 3% (which is composed of 1.6% allowance for thermal expansion and 1.4% for uncertainty) is modeled. These uncertainties were originally introduced into the Reference 10 methodology which was accepted by the NRC.

Application of Single-Failure Criterion An analysis of the effects of the single-failure criterion has been performed on the mass and energy release rates for each break analyzed. An inherent assumption in the generation of the mass and energy release is that offsite power is lost. This results in the actuation of the emergency diesel generators, which are required to power the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). Actuation of the Emergency Diesel Generators results in a delay in the time to start both the ECCS and containment safeguards. A delay in the actuation of these accident mitigating components results in a higher containment pressure and temperature for the postulated LOCA. Since the LOCA Mass and Energy (M&E) codes (Reference 2) are uncoupled from the Containment Pressure code (Reference 11) an assumption on containment pressure is required in the Reference 2 M&E calculations. Maximum containment backpressure equal to the design pressure 9

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 is modeled, which reduces the rate of safety injection, condensation of steam by the safety injection, and extends the reflood phase, which maximizes the steam release.

Two single failures have been analyzed: The first postulates the single failure of an emergency diesel generator. This is conservatively assumed to result in the loss of one train of safeguards equipment, which is modeled as: 1 High Head Safety Injection (HHSI) and 1 Low Head Safety Injection (LHSI) pump (Minimum Safeguards). The loss of a diesel generator minimizes ECCS flow and therefore the condensation of steam, increasing the energy release to the containment. The second single failure assumption postulates failure of 1 containment spray pump, resulting in all ECCS equipment operating. This case, referred to as maximum safety injection, maximizes the mass release to containment but also results in more containment heat removal equipment being available. This case considers 2 HHSI and 2 LHSI Pumps (Maximum Safeguards).

These two postulated single failures cover the range on possible single failures with regard to the affect on mass and energy releases and containment safeguards availability.

Safety Injection System Following a Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LBLOCA) inside containment, the safety injection system, (SIS) operates to reflood the reactor coolant system. The first phase of the SIS operation is the passive accumulator injection. Three accumulators are assumed available to inject. When the RCS depressurizes to 615 psia (Reference 15) the accumulators begin to inject into the cold legs at the reactor coolant loops. The accumulator injection temperature was modeled at 130'F (References 15). The Sequence of Events tables presented in the containment analysis section provide the actuation times for the accumulators for each case.

The active pumped ECCS operation of the SIS was modeled to address both minimum and maximum safeguards (minimum ECCS and maximum ECCS). The minimum ECCS flow is addressed to calculate the effect on minimizing steam water mixing/steam condensation. The maximum ECCS case addresses the effects of maximizing mass flow out the postulate RCS piping break. The SI signal is assumed to be actuated on the low pressurizer pressure setpoint of 1661.4 psia (References 15). For the maximum ECCS case, the SIS was assumed to deliver to the RCS without delay after the generation of this signal where the intent was to maximize mass flow. For the minimum ECCS case, the SIS was assumed to deliver to the RCS 41.7 seconds (References 15) after the generation of the SI signal. The ECCS flow is delivered as a function of RCS pressure.

The pumped ECCS temperature for the injection phase was assumed to be at 100°F (References 15). In the determination of long term containment pressure and temperature transients, credit is taken for cold leg pumped sump recirculation ECCS flow to the core and sump heat removal via the residual heat exchangers (RHR Hx). For the minimum ECCS case during recirculation, failure of one Engineered Safeguards Features (ESF) train one HHSI is available. The ECCS configuration for the recirculation phase maximum ECCS case is 2 HHSI. Tables 2 and 3 provide the pumped ECCS flows as a function of RCS pressure for the minimum and maximum safeguards case, 10

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 respectively. The Sequence of Events tables presented in the containment analysis provide the actuation times for the pumped ECCS flow for each case.

Description of Analyses The evaluation model used for the long-term LOCA mass and energy release calculations is the March 1979 model described in References 2 and 3. This evaluation model has been reviewed and approved generically by the NRC. The approval letter is included with Reference 2. This LOCA mass and energy release methodology has been utilized and approved on the plant-specific dockets for other Westinghouse PWRs such as Catawba Units 1 and 2, Beaver Valley Unit 2, McGuire Units 1 and 2, Millstone Unit 3, Sequoyah Units 1 and 2, Surry Units 1 and 2, Indian Point Unit 2, and Indian Point Unit 3.

A description of the Reference 2 methodology with the changes noted in Reference 3 is provided below.

Mass and Energy Release Phases The LOCA mass and energy analysis is typically divided into four phases: blowdown, refill, reflood, and post-reflood. Each of these phases is analyzed by the following codes:

blowdown - SATAN-VI; refill/reflood - WREFLOOD; and post-reflood - FROTH and EPITOME The phases and codes are discussed below.

The first phase of a LOCA mass and energy release transient is the blowdown phase, the period of time from accident initiation (when the reactor is at steady state operation) to the time that the RCS and containment reach an equilibrium pressure. The blowdown period is typically <30 seconds. It ends when the RCS active core area is essentially empty, which is within seconds of ECCS injection actuation for the minimum safeguards (Min ECCS) case. For the maximum safeguards case (Max ECCS), ECCS injection is credited after SI signal is reached w/o a delay as noted above in order to maximize the mass flow.

A mass and energy release version of the SATAN-VI code is used for computing the blowdown transient. The code utilizes the control volume (element) approach with the capability for modeling a large variety of thermal fluid system configurations. The fluid properties are considered uniform and thermodynamic equilibrium is assumed in each element. A point kinetics model is used with weighted feedback effects. The major feedback effects include moderator density, moderator temperature, and Doppler broadening. A critical flow calculation for subcooled (modified Zaloudek), two-phase (Moody), or superheated break flow is incorporated into the analysis. The methodology for the use of this model is described in Reference 2.

The refill period is the second phase of the LOcA mass and energy release transient. It is the period of time when the lower plenum is being filled by accumulator and pumped 11

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 ECCS water. At the end of blowdown, a large amount of water remains in the cold legs, downcomer, and lower plenum. To conservatively consider the refill period for the purpose of containment mass and energy releases, it is assumed that this water is instantaneously transferred to the lower plenum along with sufficient accumulator water to completely fill the lower plenum. This allows an uninterrupted release of mass and energy to containment. Thus, the refill period is conservatively neglected in the mass and energy release calculation.

The third phase of a LOCA mass and energy release transient is the core reflooding phase, which begins when the primary coolant system has depressurized (following blowdown) due to the loss of water through the break. The water from the lower plenum, supplied by the Emergency Core Cooling System refills the reactor vessel and provides cooling to the core. This phase ends when the core is completely quenched.

The model conservatively assumes quenching of the core at the 10-foot elevation on the active fuel for containment functional design calculations. During this phase, decay heat generation will produce boiling in the core resulting in a two-phase mixture of steam and water in the core. This two-phase mixture rises above the core and subsequently enters the steam generators. The most-important feature is the steam/water mixing model (described below), which is used during this phase.

The WREFLOOD code is used for computing the reflood transient. The WREFLOOD code consists of two basic hydraulic models - one for the contents of the reactor vessel, and one for the coolant loops. The two models are coupled through the interchange of the boundary conditions applied at the vessel outlet nozzles and at the top of the downcomer. Additional transient phenomena such as pumped ECCS and accumulators, reactor coolant pump performance, and steam generator release, are included as auxiliary equations which interact with the basic models as required. The WREFLOOD code permits the capability to calculate variations during the core reflooding transient of basic parameters such as core flooding rate, core and downcomer water levels, fluid thermodynamic conditions (pressure, enthalpy, density) throughout the primary system, and mass flow rates through the primary system. The code permits hydraulic modeling of the two flow paths available for discharging steam and entrained water from the core to the break; i.e., the path through the broken loop and the path through the unbroken loop.

A complete thermal equilibrium mixing condition for the steam and emergency core cooling injection water during the reflood phase has been assumed for each loop receiving ECCS water. This is consistent with the usage and application of the Reference 2 mass and energy release evaluation model in recent analyses, e.g., D.C. Cook Docket (Reference 8). Even though the Reference 2 model credits steam/mixing only in the intact loop and not in the broken loop, justification, applicability, and NRC approval for using the mixing model in the broken loop has been documented (Reference 8). This assumption is justified and supported by test data, and is summarized as follows.

The model assumes a complete mixing condition (i.e., thermal equilibrium) for the steam/water interaction. The complete mixing process, however, is made up of two distinct physical processes. The first is a two-phase interaction with condensation of 12

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 steam by cold ECCS water. The second is a single-phase mixing of condensate and ECCS water. Since the steam release is the most-important influence to the containment pressure transient, the steam condensation part of the mixing process is the only part that need be considered. (Any spillage directly heats only the sump.)

The most-applicable steam/water mixing test data has been reviewed for validation of the containment integrity reflood steam/water mixing model. This data was generated in 1/3-scale tests (Reference 9), which are the largest scale data available, and thus most-clearly simulates the flow regimes and gravitational effects that would occur in a PWR. These tests were designed specifically to study the steam/water interaction for PWR reflood conditions.

From the entire series of 1/3-scale tests, a group corresponds almost directly to containment integrity reflood conditions. The injection flowrates for this group cover all phases and mixing conditions calculated during the reflood transient. The data from these tests were reviewed and discussed in detail in Reference 2. For all of these tests, the data clearly indicates the occurrence of very effective mixing with rapid steam condensation. The mixing model used in the containment integrity reflood calculation is therefore wholly supported by the 1/3-scale steam/water mixing data.

Additionally, the following justification is also noted. The post-blowdown limiting break for the containment integrity peak pressure analysis is the pump suction double ended break. For this break, there are two flowpaths available in the RCS by which mass and energy may be released to containment. One is through the outlet of the steam generator, and the other is via reverse flow through the reactor coolant pump. Steam which is not condensed by ECCS injection in the intact RCS loop passes around the downcomer and through the broken loop cold leg and pump in venting to containment.

This steam also encounters ECCS injection water as it passes through the broken loop cold leg, complete mixing occurs and a portion of it is condensed. It is this portion of steam which is condensed that is taken credit for in this analysis. This assumption is justified based upon the postulated break location, and the actual physical presence of the ECCS injection nozzle. A description of the test and test results is contained in References 2 and 9.

Post-reflood describes the period following the reflood transient. For the pump suction break, a two-phase mixture exits the core, passes through the hot legs, is superheated in the steam generators (Reference 3), and exits the break as superheated steam. After the broken loop steam generator cools, the break flow becomes two phase.

The FROTH code (Reference 10) is used for computing the post-reflood transient. The FROTH code calculates the heat release rates resulting from a two-phase mixture level present in the steam generator tubes. The mass and energy releases that occur during this phase are typically superheated (Reference 3) due to the depressurization and equilibration of the broken loop and intact loop steam generators. During this phase of the transient, the RCS has equilibrated with the containment pressure, but the steam generators contain a secondary inventory at an enthalpy that is much higher than the primary side. Therefore, there is a significant amount of reverse heat transfer that 13

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 occurs. Steam is produced in the core due to core decay heat. During the FROTH calculation ECCS injection is addressed for both the injection phase and the recirculation phase.

Steam generator equilibration and depressurization is the process by which secondary side energy is removed from the steam generators in stages. The FROTH computer code calculates the heat removal from the secondary mass until the secondary temperature is at the saturation temperature (Tsat) at the containment design pressure. After the FROTH calculations, steam generator secondary energy is removed based on first and second stage rates. The first stage rate is applied during the time interval from the broken loop equilibrium at containment design pressure to the estimated intermediate pressure. While stage 2 is the time interval from the estimated intermediate pressure equilibrium out to an SG pressure of 14.7 psia at 3600 seconds. These rates are applied simultaneously in the transient until the desired depressurization is achieved for each steam generator, which may occur over differing periods of time and rates for each SG.

The EPITOME code continues the FROTH calculation for SG cooldown. The first stage rate is applied until the steam generator reaches Tsa*t at the user specified intermediate equilibration pressure, when the secondary pressure is assumed to reach the actual containment pressure. Then the second stage rate is used until the final depressurization, when the secondary reaches the reference temperature of Tsat at 14.7 psia, or 212°F. The heat removal of the broken loop and intact loop steam generators are calculated separately.

The Sequence of Events tables located in the containment analysis section provide the case specific broken and intact loop steam generator equilibration times. By reading the output files from SATAN-VI, WREFLOOD, and FROTH, the EPITOME code compiles a summary of data on the entire transient, including formal instantaneous mass and energy release tables and mass and energy balance tables with data at critical times.

During the FROTH calculations, steam generator heat removal rates are calculated using the secondary side temperature, primary side temperature and a secondary side heat transfer coefficient determined using a modified McAdam's correlation. Steam generator energy is removed during the FROTH transient until the secondary side temperature reaches saturation temperature at the containment design pressure. The constant heat removal rate used during the first heat removal stage is based on the final heat removal rate calculated by FROTH. The SG energy available to be released during the first stage interval is determined by calculating the difference in secondary energy available at the containment design pressure and that at the (lower) user specified intermediate equilibration pressure, assuming saturated conditions. This energy is then divided by the first stage energy removal rate, resulting in an intermediate equilibration time. At this time, the rate of energy release drops substantially to the second stage rate.

The second stage rate is determined as the fraction of the difference in secondary energy available between the intermediate equilibration and final depressurization at 212'F, and the time difference from the time of the intermediate equilibration to the user specified time of the final depressurization at 212'F. With current methodology, all of the secondary energy remaining after the intermediate equilibration is conservatively assumed to be released by imposing a mandatory (i.e. NRC requirement) cooldown and 14

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 subsequent depressurization down to atmospheric pressure at 3600 seconds, i.e., 14.7 psia and 212'F. The required depressurization to 14.7 psia at 3600 seconds was arrived at in licensing of the Reference 2 model with the NRC.

As discussed, the current approved methodology assumes that all energies in the system are taken out to these conditions in the first hour of the event. In actuality, the release of these energies to these conditions would take much longer, on the order of hours. There is the possibility that the remaining energies, for example, down to containment conditions of 130'F could be released, however this is not included in the releases discussed herein. Based upon the current and approved models, this additional energy would tend to slightly increase the water temperature of the spilled fluid coming from the pump side of the break, but would not increase the amount of steam being released from the steam generator side of the break. It is expected that the effects on the long term cooldown would be insignificant.

The methodology for the use of this model is described in Reference 2. The mass and energy release rates are calculated by FROTH and EPITOME until the time of containment depressurization. After containment depressurization (14.7 psia), the mass and energy release available to containment is generated directly from core boiloff/decay heat.

Computer Codes The Reference 2 and 3 mass and energy release evaluation model is comprised of mass and energy release versions of the following codes: SATAN VI, WREFLOOD, FROTH, and EPITOME. These codes were used to calculate the long-term LOCA mass and energy releases for HBRSEP Unit No.2.

SATAN-VI calculates blowdown, the first portion of the thermal-hydraulic transient for the RCS following break initiation, including pressure, enthalpy, density, mass and energy flowrates, and energy transfer between primary and secondary systems as a function of time.

The WREFLOOD code addresses the portion of the LOCA transient during the core reflood phase.

FROTH models the post-reflood portion of the transient. The FROTH code is used for the steam generator heat addition calculation from the broken and intact loop steam generators.

EPITOME continues the FROTH post-reflood portion of the transient from the time at which the secondary equilibrates to containment design pressure to the end of the transient.

15

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Break Size and Location Generic studies (Reference 2) have been performed with respect to the effect of postulated break size on the LOCA mass and energy releases. The double ended guillotine break has been found to be limiting due to larger mass flow rates during the blowdown phase of the transient. During the reflood and post-reflood phases, the break size has little effect on the releases.

Three distinct locations in the reactor coolant system loop can be postulated for pipe rupture:

1. Hot leg (between reactor vessel and steam generator)

2. Cold leg (between Reactor Coolant Pump and the reactor vessel)

3. Pump suction (between steam generator and Reactor Coolant Pump)

The DEHL rupture has been shown in previous studies to result in the highest blowdown mass and energy release rates. Although the core flooding rate would be the highest for this break location, the amount of energy released from the steam generator secondary is minimal because the majority of the fluid which exits the core bypasses the steam generators venting directly to containment. As a result, the reflood mass and energy releases are reduced significantly as compared to either the pump suction or cold leg break locations where the core exit mixture must pass through the steam generators before venting through the break. For the hot leg break, generic studies have confirmed that there is no reflood peak (i.e., from the end of the blowdown period the containment pressure continually decreases). Therefore only the mass and energy releases for the hot leg break blowdown phase are calculated and presented in this section of the report.

The cold leg break location has been found in previous studies to be much less limiting in terms of the overall containment energy releases. The cold leg blowdown is faster than that of the pump suction break, and more mass is released into the containment.

However, the core heat transfer is greatly reduced (due to the break location the flow will bypass the normal path through the core and go through the path of least resistance to the broken loop) and this results in a considerably lower energy release into containment. Studies have determined that the blowdown transient for the cold leg is less limiting than that for the pump suction and hot leg breaks. During reflood, the flooding rate is greatly reduced because all the core vent paths include the resistance of the reactor coolant pump, in addition to ECCS injection spill, thus the energy release rate into the containment is reduced. Therefore, the cold leg break is not included in the scope of this analysis.

The pump suction break combines the effects of the relatively high core flooding rate, as in the hot leg break, with the addition of the stored energy in the steam generators. As a result, the pump suction break yields the highest energy flow rates during the post-blowdown period by including all of the available energy of the Reactor Coolant System and secondary side in calculating the releases to containment.

16

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 The break locations analyzed for this program are the double-ended pump suction (DEPS) rupture (10.48 ft2), and the double-ended hot leg (DEHL) rupture (9.18 ft2).

Break mass and energy releases have been calculated for the blowdown, reflood, and post-reflood phases of the LOCA for the DEPS cases. For the DEHL case, the releases were calculated only for the blowdown phase.

Sources of Mass and Energy The sources of mass considered in the LOCA mass and energy release analysis are given in Tables 5, 11, and 17. These sources are the reactor coolant system, accumulators, and pumped safety injection.

The energy inventories considered in the LOCA mass and energy release analysis are given in Tables 6, 12, and 18. The energy sources include:

1. Reactor Coolant System Water

2. Accumulator Water (all inject)

3. Pumped Injection Water (RWST/ECCS)

4. Decay Heat

5. Core Stored Energy

6. Reactor Coolant System Metal - Primary Metal (includes SG tubes)

7. Steam Generator Metal (includes transition cone, lower shell, wrapper, channel head and other internals)

8. Steam Generator Secondary Energy (includes fluid mass and steam mass)

9. Secondary Transfer of Energy (feedwater into and steam out of the steam generator secondary)

The mass and energy inventories are presented at the following times, as appropriate:

1. Time zero (initial conditions)

2. End of blowdown time

3. End of refill time

4. End of reflood time

5. Time of broken loop steam generator equilibration to pressure setpoint

6. Time of intact loop steam generator equilibration to pressure setpoint

7. Time of full depressurization (3600 seconds)

Energy Reference Points Available Energy: 212'F; 14.7 psia 17

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 (The current approved methodology assumes that all energies in the system are taken out to these conditions in the first hour of the event. This is the total available energy.)

Total Energy Content: 32°F; 14.7 psia (This is the reference point for the system energy.)

In the mass and energy release data presented, no Zirc-water reaction heat was considered because the clad temperature is assumed not to rise high enough for the rate of the Zirc-water reaction heat to be of any significance. This is a feature of the Reference 2 methodology based on Peak Cladding Temperature (PCT) analyses using the models of Appendix K to 10CFR50, to meet the criteria specified in 10CFR50.46. These PCT analyses show that less than 1.0% of the total core Zirconium is reacted during the hypothetical LOCA. Thus, the energy release from the Zirconium water reaction would be small and would not significantly affect the mass and energy releases to containment.

Acceptance Criteria A large break loss-of-coolant accident is classified as an ANS Condition IV event, an infrequent fault. To satisfy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acceptance criteria, the relevant requirements are as follows:

A. HBRSEP, Unit No.2 FSAR Chapter 3.1 General Design Criteria; as it relates to General Design Criteria 10, 49, and 52, with respect to containment design integrity and containment heat removal.

B. 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, paragraph I.A: as it relates to sources of energy during the LOCA, provides requirements to assure that all energy sources have been considered.

In order to meet these requirements, the following must be addressed.

1. Sources of Energy

2. Break Size and Location

3. Calculation of Each Phase of the Accident

4. Single Failure Criteria Each of these items was addressed back in the "Description of Analyses" section.

18

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Results Using the methodology of Reference 2 and 3, the mass and energy release rates were developed to determine the containment pressure and temperature responses for each of the LOCA cases noted in the section on "Description of Analyses". The LOCA mass and energy releases discussed in this section provide the basis for the containment response analysis provided in the containment analysis section.

Table 4 presents the calculated mass and energy release for the blowdown phase of the DEHL break for the minimum safeguards case. A maximum safeguards case was not run since pumped SI would not start prior to the end of blowdown and containment safeguards actuation times are also after blowdown terminates. Therefore, a minimum and maximum safeguards assumption cases are identical. For the hot leg break mass and energy release tables, break path 1 refers to the mass and energy exiting from the reactor vessel side of the break; break path 2 refers to the mass and energy exiting from the steam generator side of the break. Note that this case was not reanalyzed and therefore the results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

Tables 7 and 13 present the calculated mass and energy releases for the blowdown phase of the DEPS break for the minimum and maximum safeguards cases. For the pump suction breaks, break path 1 in the mass and energy release tables refers to the mass and energy exiting from the steam generator side of the break; break path 2 refers to the mass and energy exiting from the pump side of the break. Note that the maximum safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the maximum safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

Tables 8, and 14 present the calculated mass and energy release for the reflood phase of the pump suction double-ended rupture, diesel failure (minimum safeguards), and no failure (maximum safeguards) cases, respectively. Note that the maximum safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the maximum safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

The transients of the principal parameters, such as core flooding rate, core and downcomer level, and safety injection and accumulator injection rates during the core reflooding portion of the LOCA are given in Tables 9, and 15 for the DEPS cases. Note that the maximum safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the maximum safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

Tables 10 and 16 present the two-phase post-reflood mass and energy release data for the pump suction double-ended cases. Note that the maximum safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the maximum safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

The sequences of events for the LOCA transients are included in the composite tables found in the containment analysis section (Table 23 though Table 25).

19

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Conclusions The consideration of the various energy sources in the long-term mass and energy release analysis provides assurance that all available sources of energy have been included in this analysis. Thus, the review guidelines presented in Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.1.3 have been satisfied. Any other conclusions cannot be drawn from the generation of mass and energy releases directly since the releases are inputs to the containment integrity analyses. The containment response must be performed (as documented in following section on containment analysis).

20

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Table I SYSTEM PARAMETERS INITIAL CONDITIONS PARAMETERS VALUE Core Thermal Power (MWt) includes 0.3% calorimetric uncertainty 2346 Reactor Coolant System Total Flowrate (lbm/sec) 27027.78 Vessel Outlet Temperature (OF) 610.3 Core Inlet Temperature (°F) 548.5 Vessel Average Temperature (°F) 579.4 Initial Steam Generator Steam Pressure (psia) 850 Steam Generator Design Model 44F Steam Generator Tube Plugging (%) 0 Initial Steam Generator Secondary Side Mass (Ibm) 97505.

Assumed Maximum Containment Backpressure (psia) 56.7 Accumulator Water Volume (ft3) per accumulator 841.

N 2 Cover Gas Pressure (psia) 615 Temperature (°F) 130.0 Safety Injection Delay, total (sec) (from beginning of event)

Minimum Safeguards 41.7 Maximum Safeguards 16.4 Note: Core Thermal Power, RCS Total Flowrate, RCS Coolant Temperature, and Steam Generator Secondary Side Mass include appropriate uncertainty and/or allowance.

21

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 2 TOTAL PUMPED ECCS FLOW RATE ASSUMING A DIESEL FAILURE (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

INJECTION MODE (REFLOOD PHASE)

RCS PRESSURE (psia) TOTAL FLOW (Ibm/sec) 14.7 568.96 20.0 556.63 40.0 505.35 60.0 451.60 80.0 388.74 100.0 312.04 120.0 205.81 140.0 64.79 160.0 64.17 180.0 63.55 200.0 62.93 220.0 62.35 INJECTION MODE (POST-REFLOOD PHASE)

RCS Pressure (psia) Total Flow (bm/sec) 56.7 460.5 RECIRCULATION MODE RCS Pressure (psia) Total Flow (lbm/sec) 14.7 57.67 22

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 3 TOTAL PUMPED ECCS FLOW RATE ASSUMING NO FAILURE (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

INJECTION MODE (REFLOOD PHASE)

RCS PRESSURE (psia) TOTAL FLOW (lbm/sec) 14.7 807.92 40.0 717.59 60.0 641.27 80.0 552.01 100.0 443.10 120.0 292.25 140.0 92.01 180.0 90.24 220.0 88.54 INJECTION MODE (POST-REFLOOD PHASE)

RCS Pressure (psia) Total Flow (Ibm/sec) 56.7 653.86 RECIRCULATION MODE RCS Pressure (psia) Total Flow (Ibnmsec) 14.7 429.0 23

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 4 DOUBLE-ENDED HOT LEG BREAK BLOWDOWN MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Double Ended Hot Leg Break case was not reanalyzed and therefore the results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

BREAK PATtl NO.I FLOW* BREAK PATII NO.2 FLOW**

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC)

.00000 .0 .0 .0 .0

.00105 42983.9 26867.8 42981.9 26865.5

.00420 43862.4 27418.5 43118.6 26936.5

.101 43200.1 27278.3 25072.8 15637.7

.201 32544.3 20691.5 22369.5 13879.0

.301 32654.6 20703.1 20038.9 12278.3

.502 31160.3 19749.0 18082.7 10750.2

.701 30877.5 19612.7 17113.0 9928.0 1.10 29429.1 19014.9 16223.5 9110.1 1.60 27052.6 18011.8 16457.5 9010.4 2.10 23872.7 16399.2 16966.2 9170.0 2.50 21480.2 15016.9 17119.5 9217.6 3.00 19256.8 13566.6 16991.5 9139.3 3.40 18123.7 12690.9 16712.5 8994.9 3.80 17520.1 12115.9 16276.5 8772.8 4.20 17391.6 11865.7 15718.4 8491.2 4.60 17637.7 11790.2 15011.5 8134.9 5.60 18257.8 11649.8 12765.5 6994.9 6.20 18619.9 11651.2 11426.2 6298.1 6.40 14613.0 9868.6 11023.3 6088.4 7.60 14156.6 9354.8 8909.7 4983.0 8.20 13797.0 9017.5 8066.3 4541.7 8.40 13376.7 8759.0 7805.3 4405.5 9.40 12644.7 8157.9 6612.4 3790.8 10.4 11367.2 7337.9 5562.6 3266.5 11.2 10136.0 6637.7 4834.2 2915.3 12.4 7699.3 5440.0 3745.3 2408.8 13.4 5474.5 4514.5 2674.1 1939.5 14.2 3735.0 3661.1 2162.2 1670.7 15.0 2514.7 2807.8 1882.5 1497.3 15.4 2096.6 2428.9 1731.1 1423.3 17.0 1235.6 1513.2 1160.0 1183.4 17.4 1095.2 1356.7 761.8 933.8 18.0 951.6 1181.7 591.7 729.9 18.4 545.1 690.6 459.8 569.5 19.2 109.7 138.9 104.6 131.7 19.8 .0 .0 .0 .0

• mass and energy exiting from the reactor vessel side of the break

• • mass and energy exiting from the SG side of the break 24

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 5 DOUBLE-ENDED HOT LEG BREAK MASS BALANCE (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Double Ended Hot Leg Break case was not reanalyzed and therefore the results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

MASS BALANCEF TIME (SECONDS) .00 19.80 19.80+c MASS (THOUSANDS) LBM Initial In RCS, Accumulator 559.81 559.81 559.81 and Steam Generator Added Mass Pumped Injecton .00 .00 .00 Total Added .00 .00 .00

• • • Total Available *** 559.81 559.81 559.81 Distribution Reactor Coolant 404.21 54.12 80.73 Accumulator 155.60 117.31 90.69 Total Contents 559.81 171.42 171.42 Effluent Bread Flow .00 388.37 388.37 ECCS Spill .00 .00 .00 Total Effluent .00 388.37 388.37

• • • Total Accountable *** 559.81 559.79 559.79 25

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 6 DOUBLE-ENDED HOT LEG BREAK ENERGY BALANCE (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Double Ended Hot Leg Break case was not reanalyzed and therefore the results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

ENERGY BALANCE Time (Seconds) .00 19.80 19.80+c ENERGY MILLION) BTU Initial Energy In RCS, Accumulator 579.75 579.75 579.75 and Steam Generator Added Energy Pumped Injection .00 .00 .00 Decay Heat .00 4.59 4.59 H-leat From Secondary .00 -3.70 -3.70 Total Added .00 .89 .89

• • • Total Available *** 579.75 580.64 580.64 DISTRIBUTION Reactor Coolant 235.41 14.43 17.08 Accumulator 15.48 11.67 9.02 Core Stored 19.95 8.34 8.34 Primary Metal 131.95 124.88 124.88 Secondary Metal 29.69 28.96 28.96 Steam Generator 147.27 142.63 142.63 Total Contents 579.75 330.90 330.90 Effluent Break Flow .00 249.25 249.25 ECCS Spill .00 .00 .00 Total Effluent .00 249.25 249.25

• • • Total Accountable

• 579.75 580.15 580.15 26

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 7 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK BLOWDOWN MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

BREAK PATH NO.1 FLOW* BREAK PATH NO.2 FLOW**

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC)

.00 .0 .0 .0 .0

.00103 82369.3 44575.4 39613.0 21396.9

.00206 40639.7 21952.1 40313.2 21773.9

.10 40014.4 21683.1 19703.5 10630.5

.20 40418.2 22050.6 22114.5 11943.6

.40 41628.5 23156.5 23112.1 12493.1

.60 42044.6 23917.3 21929.8 1 1864.3

.90 38891.3 22725.6 21401.9 11593.3 1.40 34692.9 21107.2 20452.5 11085.4 1.90 31103.5 19784.9 19672.2 10660.6 2.20 27779.8 18328.9 19201.6 10403.5 2.30 26231.1 17506.2 18728.9 10145.1 2.50 21041.7 14283.8 17868.5 9676.9 2.70 18854.8 12901.2 17322.6 9381.8 3.10 14590.7 10070.2 16134.0 8740.0 3.30 13147.9 9130.5 15626.9 8468.7 3.80 11143.4 7902.9 14768.6 8013.0 4.60 9292.4 6890.9 13804.1 7504.5 5.00 8768.4 6600.6 14508.3 7898.8 6.00 8108.6 6153.6 14258.0 7782.4 7.20 7762.4 5769.8 13466.2 7340.8 7.60 8204.2 6018.9 13210.9 7196.5 8.00 7055.5 5844.7 12857.2 6997.6 9.20 6343.3 5217.4 11642.6 6333.8 10.4 5880.6 4699.4 10474.0 5693.8 12.6 4536.3 3700.5 8390.0 4566.7 13.6 4023.1 3245.7 7577.3 3881.4 13.8 3930.0 3183.0 7708.0 3882.4 14.0 3835.6 3130.0 6997.4 3468.2 14.4 3633.6 3035.8 7786.4 3768.2 14.6 3547.2 3010.4 6186.0 2962.9 15.0 3333.8 2946.7 7304.1 3420.1 15.2 3246.0 2944.8 5595.3 2609.2 15.4 3125.1 2924.7 7215.7 3297.6 15.6 2935.1 2866.5 10810.9 4993.0 15.8 2810.5 2891.9 5649.8 2615.6 16.0 2572.0 2822.2 4374.9 2017.3 27

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 7 (Cont'd) DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK BLOWDOWN MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

BREAK PATH NO. 1 FLOW* BREAK PATH NO.2 FLOW**

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC) 16.2 2267.6 2650.3 7592.5 3305.4 16.4 2071.7 2512.1 6159.1 2654.5 16.6 1905.4 2338.6 3673.2 1576.6 17.0 1596.8 1975.2 3608.2 1466.4 17.2 1461.4 1812.4 4016.0 1562.9 17.8 1134.6 1415.4 3057.2 1139.0 18.4 875.9 1097.0 3093.2 1062.9 18.8 691.7 868.4 3631.8 1168.5 19.2 538.3 677.0 3391.0 1053.5 20.0 277.9 350.4 2456.6 732.7 20.8 132.3 167.4 1659.0 479.3 21.4 .0 .0 1281.4 367.6 22.6 .0 .0 .0 .0

• - Mass and Energy exiting the SG side of the break

• • - Mass and Energy exiting the pump side of break 28

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 8 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK REFLOOD MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

BREAK PATH NO.1 FLOW BREAK PATH NO.2 FLOW TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC) 22.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 23.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 23.7 54.9 64.6 .0 .0 23.8 15.2 17.9 .0 .0 23.9 8.0 9.4 .0 .0 24.1 11.1 13.1 .0 .0 24.7 39.2 46.1 .0 .0 26.7 83.0 97.6 .0 .0 27.7 98.8 116.4 .0 .0 30.7 136.2 160.4 .0 .0 31.7 151.5 178.5 2664.1 398.4 32.7 156.2 184.0 3342.8 504.1 33.7 155.5 183.2 3301.8 501.0 35.7 153.8 181.2 3169.0 486.5 36.7 153.0 180.2 3105.0 479.5 37.6 152.2 179.3 3049.2 473.3 37.7 152.2 179.3 3043.1 472.6 38.7 151.4 178.3 2983.3 465.9 39.7 150.7 177.5 2925.4 459.4 40.7 149.9 176.6 2869.4 453.1 41.7 149.2 175.8 2815.2 447.0 43.7 147.9 174.2 2712.0 435.3 45.7 146.7 172.8 2615.0 424.2 46.3 146.3 172.3 2587.0 420.9 46.7 147.0 173.2 2817.5 432.0 47.7 145.1 170.9 271.1 148.8 55.7 140.6 165.6 265.9 142.7 59.7 138.5 163.1 263.5 139.9 73.7 132.1 155.6 256.2 131.3 81.7 129.1 152.0 252.7 127.1 87.7 127.0 149.6 250.2 124.3 89.7 126.4 148.8 249.5 123.4 97.7 124.0 146.0 246.6 120.0 115.7 119.5 140.7 242.3 113.8 123.7 117.8 138.7 241.5 111.7 131.7 116.4 137.0 242.0 110.0 135.7 115.7 136.2 242.7 109.4 141.7 114.7 135.1 244.6 108.6 29

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 8 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK REFLOOD (Cont'd) MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

BREAK PATH NO.1 FLOW BREAK PATH NO.2 FLOW TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC) 149.7 113.5 133.7 248.5 107.9 157.7 112.3 132.2 253.7 107.6 165.7 111.1 130.8 260.0 107.3 167.7 110.7 130.4 261.7 107.3 171.7 110.0 129.6 265.1 107.2 187.7 107.0 125.9 278.6 106.5 195.7 105.2 123.9 284.8 105.8 197.7 104.8 123.4 286.2 105.6 205.7 102.9 121.2 291.7 104.7 213.7 101.0 118.9 296.7 103.6 229.7 97.0 114.2 305.6 101.1 230.5 96.8 113.9 306.0 100.9

• Mass and Energy exiting the SG side of the break

• • - Mass and Energy exiting the pump side of break 30

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 9 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK PRINCIPLE PARAMETERS DURING REFLOOD (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

FLOODING INJECTION Time Temp Rate Carryover Core Dwncomer Flow Frac Total Accum Spill Enthalpy (Seconds) (Deg-F) (in/Sec) Fraction Height Height (Lbm/Sec) (Lb/Sec) (LbJ/Sec) (Btu/Lbm)

(Ft) (Ft) 22.6 185.3 .000 .0 .00 .00 .333 .0 .0 .0 .00 23.4 183.7 21.232 .0 .64 1.02 .000 4769.9 4769.9 .0 99.46 23.5 183.3 22.002 .0 .82 1.03 .000 4754.9 4754.9 .0 99.46 23.6 183.0 21.833 .0 1.01 1.03 .000 4740.0 4740.0 .0 99.46 23.9 182.6 2.032 .085 1.29 1.47 .203 4674.6 4674.6 .0 99.46 24.4 182.7 2.369 .163 1.38 2.49 .340 4601.1 4601.1 .0 99.46 25.3 182.9 2.242 .293 1.50 4.19 .398 4488.1 4488.1 .0 99.46 26.7 183.4 2.181 .435 1.66 6.94 .420 4313.6 4313.6 .0 99.46 30.5 184.7 2.447 .606 2.00 14.04 .435 3914.7 3914.7 .0 99.46 31.7 185.1 2.564 .631 2.10 15.49 .450 3808.1 3808.1 .0 99.46 34.7 186.4 2.444 .666 2.32 15.57 .456 3564.1 3564.1 .0 99.46 37.6 187.6 2.354 .683 2.50 15.57 .454 3360.5 3360.5 .0 99.46 46.3 191.8 2.211 .705 3.00 15.57 .450 2871.1 2871.1 .0 99.46 46.7 192.0 2.213 .706 3.03 15.57 .450 3103.0 2643.6 .0 94.81 47.7 192.6 2.212 .708 3.08 15.56 .445 460.0 .0 .0 68.03 55.8 197.2 2.124 .714 3.50 15.30 .444 460.0 .0 .0 68.03 66.0 204.0 2.039 .719 4.00 15.06 .443 460.1 .0 .0 68.03 76.7 211.9 1.966 .722 4.50 14.89 .443 460.1 .0 .0 68.03 88.0 220.5 1.900 .725 5.00 14.80 .442 460.2 .0 .0 68.03 99.7 228.5 1.841 .728 5.50 14.78 .442 460.2 .0 .0 68.03 111.9 235.8 1.789 .731 6.00 14.82 .441 460.2 .0 .0 68.03 125.7 242.9 1.738 .734 6.54 14.94 .441 460.3 .0 .0 68.03 31

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 9 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK PRINCIPLE PARAMETERS DURING REFLOOD (Cont'd) (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

FLOODING INJECTION Time Temp Rate Carryover Core Dwncomer Flow Frac Total Accum Spill Enthalpy (Seconds) (Deg-F) (in/Sec) Fraction Height Height (Lb 1JSec) (Lbm/Sec) (Lb,/Sec) (BttILbm)

(Ft) (Ft) 137.8 248.5 1.699 .737 7.00 15.07 .442 460.2 .0 .0 68.03 151.7 254.1 1.657 .741 7.51 15.24 .443 460.2 .0 .0 68.03 165.8 259.1 1.613 .744 8.00 15.38 .444 460.2 .0 .0 68.03 181.7 264.0 1.558 .748 8.53 15.49 .445 460.1 .0 .0 68.03 196.3 267.9 1.503 .751 9.00 15.54 .446 460.1 .0 .0 68.03 213.7 272.0 1.434 .755 9.53 15.57 .447 460.1 .0 .0 68.03 230.5 275.4 1.365 .759 10.00 15.57 .448 460.1 .0 .0 68.03 32

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 10 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK POST-REFLOOD MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

BREAK PATH NO. I* BREAK PATtI NO.2*

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC) 230.6 104.8 132.0 355.6 104.0 235.6 105.5 132.9 354.9 103.6 260.6 104.0 131.0 356.4 103.0 265.6 104.7 131.8 355.8 102.6 290.6 103.1 129.9 357.3 102.0 295.6 103.8 130.7 356.7 101.6 320.6 102.2 128.7 358.2 101.0 325.6 102.8 129.5 357.6 100.6 350.6 101.2 127.5 359.2 100.0 355.6 101.8 128.3 358.6 99.6 380.6 100.2 126.2 360.2 98.9 385.6 100.8 127.0 359.6 98.6 410.6 99.4 125.1 361.1 97.9 415.6 100.0 126.0 360.4 97.5 435.6 99.9 125.9 360.5 98.9 460.6 98.7 124.3 361.8 98.1 465.6 99.3 125.1 361.1 97.7 490.6 98.0 123.5 362.4 96.8 510.6 98.6 124.3 361.8 97.9 530.6 97.6 122.9 362.9 97.2 535.6 98.1 123.6 362.3 96.8 555.6 97.0 122.1 363.5 96.0 580.6 97.1 122.3 363.3 96.8 615.6 95.8 120.7 364.6 95.1 630.6 96.5 121.5 364.0 96.2 665.6 95.0 119.7 365.4 94.4 675.6 95.8 120.7 364.6 95.5 700.6 94.8 119.4 365.7 94.1 715.6 95.1 119.7 365.4 95.0 760.6 93.9 118.3 366.5 93.8 835.6 93.6 117.9 366.8 92.7 935.6 92.1 116.0 368.4 92.3 940.6 51.9 65.4 408.6 102.0 1120.3 51.9 65.4 408.6 102.0 1120.4 58.1 72.3 402.4 98.2 1151.3 57.5 66.2 402.9 31.3 33

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 10 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK POST-REFLOOD (Cont'd.) MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

BREAK PATtl NO.1' BREAK PATH NO.2""

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTUISEC) (BTU/SEC) 2442.0 48.5 55.8 412.0 33.0 2442.1 48.5 55.8 41.3 15.5 3042.0 46.1 53.0 43.7 16.0 3042.1 46.1 53.0 560.2 126.4 3600.0 43.8 50.4 562.4 126.8 3600.1 36.4 41.9 569.8 116.8 4620.0 33.5 38.5 572.7 117.4 4620.1 31.5 36.3 26.1 3.8 6000.1 28.9 33.2 28.8 4.2 10000.0 24.9 28.7 32.7 4.8 39600.0 17.3 19.9 40.4 5.9 100000.0 13.3 15.3 44.4 6.4 500000.1 7.6 8.8 50.0 6.8 1000000.0 5.7 6.5 52.0 7.0

• - Mass and Energy exiting the SG side of the break

• • - Mass and Energy exiting the pump side of break 34

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 11 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MASS BALANCE (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

MASS BALANCE Time (Seconds) .00 22.60 22.60 230.53 J1120.39 1151.23 3600.00 MASS (THOUSAND LBM)

Initial In RCS and 559.81 559.81 559.81 559.81 559.81 559.81 559.81 Accumulator Added Mass Pumped Injection .00 .00 .00 84.67 494.37 508.57 1495.05 Total Added .00 .00 .00 84.67 494.37 508.57 1495.05

• TotalAvailable *** 559.81 559.81 559.81 644.48 1054.18 1068.38 2054.86 Distribution Reactor Coolant 404.21 37.83 59.43 113.73 113.73 113.73 113.73 Accumulator 155.60 110.76 89.15 .00 .00 .00 .00 Total Contents 559.81 148.58 148.58 113.73 113.73 113.73 113.73 Effluent Break Flow .00 411.22 411.22 530.74 940.44 954.64 1941.11 ECCS Spill .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Total Effluent .00 411.22 411.22 530.74 940.44 954.64 1941.11

• • • Total Accountable *** 559.81 559.80 559.80 644.47 1054.17 1068.36 2054.84 35

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 12 DOUBLE -ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK ENERGY BALANCE (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

ENERGY BALANCE Time 1(Seconds) .00 22.60 22.60 1230.53 11120.39 11512336000 ENERGY (MILLION BTU)

Initial Energy In RCS, 592.79 592.79 592.79 592.79 592.79 592.79 592.79 Accumulator and Steam Generator Added Energy Pumped .00 .00 .00 5.76 33.63 34.60 Injection 152.73 Decay Hleat .00 4.63 4.63 20.91 70.13 71.61 1 _168.33 1leat From .00 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.36 8.36 8.36 Secondary Total Added .00 12.98 12.98 35.02 112.12 114.57 329.42

• • • Total Available *** 592.79 605.77 605.77 627.82 704.92 707.36 922.21 Distribution Reactor Coolant 235.41 8.23 10.37 29.53 29.53 29.53 29.53 Accumulator 15.48 11.02 8.87 .00 .00 .00 .00 Core Stored 19.95 10.99 10.99 3.82 3.74 3.72 2.68 Primary Metal 131.95 126.14 126.14 101.87 58.92 58.10 41.83 Secondary 29.69 29.30 29.30 26.69 15.37 15.07 10.85 Metal Steam 160.31 171.42 171.42 153.05 83.34 81.83 58.24 Generator Total Contents 592.79 357.09 357.09 314.96 190.89 188.25 143.13 Effluent Break Flow .00 248.21 248.21 305.46 506.63 496.24 758.02 ECCS Spill .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Total Effluent .00 248.21 248.21 305.46 506.63 496.24 758.02

• • • Total Accountable *** 592.79 605.31 605.31 620.42 697.52 684.49 901.15 36

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 13 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK BLOWDOWN MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

BREAK PATH NO. 1 FLOW* BREAK PATH NO. 2 FLOW**

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC)

.0000 .0 .0 .0 .0

.00103 82365.3 44573.2 39618.3 21399.7

.00206 40639.7 21952.1 40313.1 21773.9

.101 40102.2 21732.2 19713.5 10635.9

.202 40673.3 22197.4 22178.2 11978.1

.301 41398.2 22799.7 23342.2 12613.7

.402 42176.3 23481.5 23249.1 12567.5

.602 42826.5 24394.4 22110.8 11962.9

.701 42111.3 24227.3 21855.6 11831.1

.902 39535.1 23132.5 21680.9 11745.5 1.40 35231.4 21460.7 21018.9 11393.6 1.70 33014.7 20601.2 20719.7 11230.1 1.90 31209.1 19889.1 20150.9 10919.0 2.20 27668.3 18276.1 19177.1 10387.9 2.30 25944.3 17333.0 18782.8 10173.0 2.50 20498.7 13919.7 17990.0 9741.9 2.70 18694.1 12804.5 17279.4 9356.8 3.10 14645.1 10142.2 16275.6 8817.1 3.40 12575.4 8813.5 15660.0 8488.9 3.60 11768.7 8310.2 15288.7 8291.1 3.90 10944.0 7812.6 14577.6 7909.6 4.40 9876.7 7210.7 13917.6 7561.1 4.80 9212.2 6860.6 14624.2 7956.6 5.40 8708.8 6604.3 14625.1 7969.0 5.80 8344.7 6416.4 14413.0 7858.8 6.80 7933.9 6059.9 13773.3 7505.8 7.20 7968.6 5947.3 13471.8 7335.3 7.60 8515.3 6345.5 13261.4 7216.6 8.00 7153.8 5957.4 12797.8 6958.1 8.80 6686.5 5571.5 11953.3 6499.7 10.6 5928.9 4735.8 10193.7 5540.5 12.4 4762.6 3790.2 8439.2 4594.3 13.6 4138.0 3299.6 7605.2 3833.9 14.0 3921.7 3200.1 7430.1 3638.1 14.4 3704.0 3127.1 6690.8 3193.9 14.6 3591.1 3098.9 6971.9 3291.3 14.8 3478.8 3079.6 6376.1 2984.0 15.2 3211.6 3044.7 6593.4 3015.4 37

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 13 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK BLOWDOWN MASS AND (Cont'd) ENERGY RELEASES (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

BREAK PATH NO. 1 FLOW* BREAK PATH NO. 2 FLOW**

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC) 15.4 3063.9 3038.3 5849.1 2651.6 15.8 2546.0 2853.0 5382.8 2363.7 16.2 2126.3 2581.4 4430.1 1882.9 17.0 1496.5 1857.4 3590.1 1414.1 17.6 1148.4 1433.4 3769.2 1366.7 18.0 956.8 1197.7 4261.2 1463.9 18.2 779.6 977.4 4243.9 1428.8 18.6 481.9 605.8 3429.2 1130.4 19.6 152.8 193.1 565.8 188.3 20.2 79.9 101.3 858.0 287.2 20.4 58.9 74.9 785.6 261.5 21.0 .0 .0 .0 .0

• - Mass and Energy exiting the SG side of the break

• • - Mass and Energy exiting the pump side of break 38

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 14 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK REFLOOD MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

BREAK PATH NO. 1* BREAK PATH NO. 2*

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC) 21.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 21.5 .0 .0 217.9 14.8 21.9 .0 .0 217.9 14.8 22.0 44.0 51.7 217.9 14.8 22.1 23.6 27.8 217.9 14.8 22.6 49.9 58.7 217.9 14.8 23.3 79.4 93.4 217.9 14.8 25.0 126.8 149.4 217.9 14.8 26.0 161.5 190.2 4103.2 545.9 27.0 165.9 195.5 4559.5 612.9 28.0 164.6 193.9 4472.9 604.0 30.0 162.1 191.0 4297.7 585.5 31.0 160.9 189.6 4213.6 576.5 32.0 159.8 188.3 4132.6 567.8 33.0 158.8 187.1 4054.8 559.4 34.0 157.8 185.9 3980.1 551.3 34.8 157.0 185.0 3922.5 545.0 35.0 156.9 184.8 3908.4 543.5 36.0 155.9 183.7 3839.5 535.9 37.0 155.1 182.7 3773.3 528.7 39.0 153.4 180.7 3648.4 514.9 41.0 151.9 178.9 3532.4 502.1 43.0 150.5 177.2 3424.3 490.1 45.0 149.1 175.7 3323.2 478.8 47.0 147.9 174.2 3228.2 468.1 48.0 142.9 168.3 405.6 141.7 49.0 145.4 171.3 401.0 143.8 53.0 144.3 169.9 404.9 143.4 61.0 142.1 167.4 411.4 142.5 65.0 141.1 166.2 414.4 142.0 81.0 137.3 161.7 424.8 140.0 86.0 136.1 160.3 427.8 139.4 102.0 132.4 155.9 436.8 137.2 104.0 131.9 155.4 437.9 136.9 112.0 130.1 153.2 442.2 135.8 114.0 129.6 152.6 443.3 135.5 122.0 127.7 150.3 447.6 134.4 39

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Table 14 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK REFLOOD MASS (Cont'd) AND ENERGY RELEASES (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

Break Flow Path No.1

• Break Flow Path No.2**

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC) 138.0 123.8 145.7 456.2 132.0 142.0 122.8 144.6 458.3 131.4 150.0 120.8 142.2 462.6 130.3 152.0 120.3 141.6 463.7 130.0 168.0 116.2 136.8 472.4 127.6 170.0 115.6 136.2 473.4 127.3 186.0 111.6 131.3 482.1 125.0 188.0 111.0 130.7 483.1 124.7 204.0 107.0 126.0 491.8 122.6 206.0 106.5 125.4 492.9 122.3 238.0 98.7 116.2 510.7 118.6 246.0 96.9 114.1 515.4 117.9 246.6 96.8 113.9 515.8 117.9

• - Mass and Energy exiting the SG side of the break

• • - Mass and Energy exiting the pump side of break 40

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 15 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK PRINCIPLE PARAMETERS DURING REFLOOD (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

FLOODING INJECTION Time Temp Rate Carryover Core Dwncomer Flow Frac Total Accum Spill Enthalpy (Seconds) (Deg-F) (in/Sec) Fraction Height Height (Lbm/Sec) (Lbm/Sec) (Lb,,/Sec) (BttILbn)

(Ft) (Ft) 21.0 220.3 .000 .000 .00 .00 .333 .0 .0 .0 .00 21.7 217.4 25.116 .000 .65 1.65 .000 5770.3 5116.4 .0 95.90 21.9 215.6 28.495 .000 1.10 1.60 .000 5716.6 5062.7 .0 95.87 22.3 214.8 2.912 .137 1.35 2.94 .365 5641.1 4987.2 .0 95.82 22.4 214.8 2.929 .163 1.37 3.31 .383 5615.8 4961.9 .0 95.80 23.1 214.6 2.758 .303 1.50 6.01 .418 5498.6 4844.7 .0 95.72 23.9 214.6 2.681 .410 1.61 8.87 .429 5380.9 4727.0 .0 95.64 26.0 214.4 2.936 .569 1.86 15.53 .464 5077.9 4426.7 .0 95.43 27.0 214.4 2.795 .604 1.95 15.57 .469 4965.6 4315.3 .0 95.34 27.6 214.4 2.716 .620 2.01 15.57 .469 4896.6 4246.2 .0 95.29 34.8 215.6 2.347 .694 2.50 15.57 .462 4235.0 3583.7 .0 94.63 43.8 218.5 2.198 .716 3.00 15.57 .457 3667.3 3015.3 .0 93.87 48.0 220.2 2.150 .720 3.21 15.57 .448 654.2 .0 .0 68.04 49.0 220.6 2.156 .722 3.26 15.57 .448 652.9 .0 .0 68.04 53.8 223.1 2.124 .726 3.50 15.57 .448 652.9 .0 .0 68.03 64.4 230.0 2.064 .732 4.00 15.57 .449 652.9 .0 .0 68.04 76.0 238.1 2.006 .738 4.52 15.57 .449 652.9 .0 .0 68.04 87.2 244.8 1.955 .742 5.00 15.57 .449 652.8 .0 .0 68.03 100.0 251.5 1.899 .746 5.53 15.57 .450 652.8 .0 .0 68.04 112.1 256.9 1.848 .750 6.00 15.57 .450 652.9 .0 .0 68.04 126.0 262.3 1.789 .754 6.53 15.57 .450 652.9 .0 .0 68.04 139.3 266.8 1.733 .758 7.00 15.57 .451 652.9 .0 .0 68.03 41

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 15 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK PRINCIPLE PARAMETERS DURING REFLOOD (Cont'd) (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

FLOODING INJECTION Time Temp Rate Carryover Core Dwncomer Flow Frac Total Accum Spill Enthalpy (Seconds) (Deg-F) (in/Sec) Fraction Height Height (LbJ/Sec) (LbJSec) (Lb/Sec) (BttILbm)

(Ft) (Ft) 156.0 271.6 1.662 .764 7.57 15.57 .451 652.9 .0 .0 68.04 169.7 274.9 1.603 .768 8.00 15.57 .451 652.9 .0 .0 68.04 188.0 278.8 1.526 .774 8.55 15.57 .451 653.0 .0 .0 68.04 204.4 281.8 1.457 .781 9.00 15.57 .450 653.1 .0 .0 68.04 226.0 285.1 1.367 .792 9.54 15.57 .450 653.1 .0 .0 68.04 246.6 287.7 1.281 .807 10.00 15.57 .449 653.2 .0 .0 68.04 42

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 16 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK POST-REFLOOD MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

BREAK PATH NO. I* BREAK PATH NO. 2**

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC) 246.7 104.2 130.6 549.6 111.2 271.7 103.5 129.7 550.3 110.4 276.7 104.1 130.4 549.7 110.1 291.7 103.1 129.2 550.7 109.7 296.7 103.6 129.9 550.2 109.3 306.7 103.0 129.1 550.8 109.1 311.7 103.5 129.7 550.3 108.8 326.7 102.5 128.5 551.3 108.4 331.7 103.0 129.1 550.8 108.1 341.7 102.3 128.3 551.5 107.8 346.7 102.8 128.9 551.0 107.5 356.7 102.1 128.0 551.7 107.2 361.7 102.6 128.6 551.2 109.2 376.7 102.4 128.3 551.4 108.6 401.7 101.4 127.1 552.4 107.7 406.7 101.9 127.7 551.9 107.3 416.7 101.4 127.1 552.4 107.0 436.7 101.8 127.6 552.0 106.0 451.7 100.9 126.5 552.9 105.5 481.7 101.4 127.1 552.4 106.2 506.7 100.5 125.9 553.3 105.1 531.7 100.9 126.5 552.9 103.7 581.7 99.8 125.1 554.0 103.3 591.7 100.3 125.7 553.5 102.6 606.7 99.6 124.9 554.2 103.9 616.7 100.1 125.4 553.8 103.2 636.7 99.4 124.6 554.4 102.1 656.7 99.8 125.1 554.0 102.7 786.7 98.4 123.4 555.4 100.1 791.7 54.0 67.7 599.8 112.8 1029.3 54.0 67.7 599.8 112.8 1029.4 57.5 71.4 596.3 108.7 1144.7 57.5 71.4 596.3 108.7 1144.8 56.1 64.6 597.7 41.0 1824.0 50.1 57.6 603.7 42.1 1824.1 50.1 57.6 41.4 11.7 2424.0 47.1 54.2 44.4 12.3 43

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 16 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK POST-REFLOOD MASS AND ENERGY RELEASES (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

BREAK PATH NO. I* BREAK PATH NO. 2**

TIME FLOW ENERGY FLOW ENERGY (SECONDS) (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (LBM/SEC) THOUSANDS (BTU/SEC) (BTU/SEC) 2424.1 47.1 54.2 571.8 125.0 3600.0 42.3 48.7 576.6 125.9 3600.1 36.4 41.9 582.5 119.4 4002.0 34.8 40.0 584.1 119.8 4002.1 32.7 37.6 475.3 69.4 4560.0 31.6 36.4 476.4 69.5 4560.1 31.6 36.4 111.8 16.3 10000.0 24.9 28.7 118.5 17.2 39600.0 17.3 19.9 126.2 18.4 39600.1 17.3 19.9 412.2 59.8 100000.0 13.3 15.3 416.2 60.3 500000.1 7.6 8.8 421.9 57.0 1000000.0 5.7 6.5 423.9 57.2

• - Mass and Energy exiting the SG side of the break

• • - Mass and Energy exiting the pump side of break 44

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 17 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MASS BALANCE (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

MASS BALANCE Time .00 21.00 21.00+c 1 246.641 1 1029.37 1144.72 3600.00 (Seconds) I MASS (THOUSAND LBM)

Initial In RCS and ACC 559.81 559.81 559.81 559.81 559.81 559.81 559.81 Added Mass Pumped Injection .00 .00 .00 147.24 658.96 734.37 1961.21 Total Added .00 .00 .00 147.24 658.96 734.37 1961.21

• • • Total Available *** 559.81 559.81 559.81 707.05 1218.77 1294.18 2521.02 Distribution Reactor Coolant 404.21 34.89 54.16 96.52 96.52 96.52 96.52 Accumulator 155.60 118.50 99.23 .00 .00 .00 .00 Total Contents 559.81 153.39 153.39 96.52 96.52 96.52 96.52 Effluent Break Flow .00 406.41 406.41 610.521 1122.24 1197.65 2424.49 ECCS Spill .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Total Effluent .00 406.41 406.41 610.521 1122.24 1197.65 2424.49 Total Accountable *** 559.81 559.80 559.80 707.041 1218.76 1294.17 2521.01 45

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 18 DOUBLE -ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK ENERGY BALANCE (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard csreults are identical to the Reference 4 results.

ENERGY BALANCE Time (Seconds) .00 121.00 121.00+c 1246.64 11029.37 1144.72 13600.00 ENERGY (MILLION BTU)

Initial Energy In RCS, 579.75 579.75 579.75 579.75 579.75 579.75 579.75 Accumulator and Steam Generator ____

Added Energy Pumped .00 .00 .00 10.02 44.83 49.96 237.89 InjectionII Decay H-eat .00 4.42 4.42 21.95 65.66 71.25 168.04 Heat From .00 -3.52 -3.52 -3.52 -1.47 -1.47 -1.47

______________ Secondary ____

_________ Total Added .00 .90 .90 28.45 109.02 119.74 404.46

• • Total Available *** 579.75 580.65 580.65 608.2 688.77 699.49 984.21 Distribution Reactor Coolant 235.41 9.70 11.62 26.38 26.38 26.38 26.38

________ Accumulator 15.48 11.79 9.87 .00 .00 .00 .00 Core Stored 19.95 11.08 11.08 3.82 3.64 3.60 2.68 Primary Metal 131.95 125.79 125.79 101.18 59.26 56.21 43.04_

Secondary 29.69 29.45 29.45 26.21 15.74 14.59 11.35 Metal_____

Steam 147.27 145.70 145.70 125.97 73.13 67.88 52.78 Generator _______________

Total Contents 579.75 333.50 333.50 283.56 178.16 168.66 136.23 Effluent Break Flow .00 1246.68 246.68 317.22 503.20 507.02 825.43

_________ ECCS Sill .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

________ Total Effluent .00 246.68 246.68 317.22 503.20 507.02 825.43 STotal Accountable *** 579.75 580.18 580.18 600.79 681.36 675.68 961.66 46

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 19 DECAY HEAT CURVE 1979 ANS PLUS 2 SIGMA UNCERTAINTY Time (sec) Decay -leatGeneration Rate (P/Po) 1.00E+01 0.053876 1.50E+01 0.050401 2.OOE+01 0.048018 4.OOE+01 0.042401 6.00E+01 0.039244 8.OOE+01 0.037065 1.00E+02 0.035466 1.50E+02 0.032724 2.OOE+02 0.030936 4.OOE+02 0.027078 6.OOE+02 0.024931 8.OOE+02 0.023389 1.00E+03 0.022156 1.50E+03 0.019921 2.00E+03 0.018315 4.00E+03 0.014781 6.00E+03 0.013040 8.00E+03 0.012000 1.00E+04 0.011262 1.50E+04 0.010097 2.00E+04 0.009350 4.OOE+04 0.007778 6.OOE+04 0.006958 8.OOE+04 0.006424 1.00E+05 0.006021 1.50E+05 0.005323 4.OOE+05 0.003770 6.OOE+05 0.003201 8.OOE+05 0.002834 1.OOE+06 0.002580 47

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Long Term LOCA Containment Response (COCO) Analysis Accident Description The HBRSEP Unit No.2 Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.2 containment system is designed such that for all loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) break sizes, up to and including the double-ended severance of a reactor coolant pipe, the containment peak pressure remains below the design pressure. This section details the containment response subsequent to a hypothetical LOCA. The containment response analysis uses the long term mass and energy release data discussed in previous sections.

The containment response analysis demonstrates the acceptability of the containment safeguards systems to mitigate the consequences of a LOCA inside containment. The impact of LOCA mass and energy releases on the containment pressure is addressed to assure that the containment pressure remains below its design pressure at the licensed core power conditions. In support of equipment design and licensing criteria (e.g.

qualified operating life), with respect to post accident environmental conditions, long term containment pressure and temperature transients are generated to conservatively bound the potential post-LOCA containment conditions.

Input Parameters and Assumptions An analysis of containment response to the rupture of the RCS must start with knowledge of the initial conditions in the containment. The pressure, temperature, and humidity of the containment atmosphere prior to the postulated accident are specified in the analysis as shown in Table 20.

Also, values for the initial temperature of the service water (SW) and refueling water storage tank (RWST) are assumed, along with containment spray (CS) pump flowrate and Reactor Containment Fan Cooler (RCFC) heat removal performance. All of these values are chosen conservatively, as shown in Table 20. Long term sump recirculation is addressed via Residual Heat Removal System (RHR) heat exchanger performance. The primary function of the RHR system is to remove heat from the core by way of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS). Table 20 provides the RHR system parameters assumed in the analysis.

A series of cases was performed for the LOCA containment response. Previous sections have documented the M&E releases for the minimum and maximum safeguards cases for a DEPS break and the releases from the blowdown of a DEHL break.

For the maximum safeguards DEPS case a failure of a containment spray pump was assumed as the single failure, which leaves available as active heat removal systems, one containment spray pump and four RCFCs. Table 22 provides the performance data for one spray pump in operation. (Note: For the Maximum safeguards case a limiting assumption was made concerning the modeling of the recirculation system, i.e., heat exchangers. Minimum safeguards data was conservatively used to model the RHR heat 48

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 exchangers, i.e., one RHR Hx was credited for residual heat removal. Emergency safeguards equipment data is given in Table 20.)

The minimum safeguards case was based upon a diesel train failure (which leaves available as active heat removal systems one containment spray pump and 2 RCFCs).

Due to the duration of the DEHL transient (i.e. blowdown only), no containment safeguards equipment is modeled.

The calculations for the new DEPS case with minimum ECCS flows were performed out to 100,000 seconds (approximately 1.6 days). The DEHL cases were terminated soon after the end of the blowdown. The sequence of events for each of these cases is shown in Tables 23 through 25.

The following are the major assumptions made in the analysis.

(a) The mass and energy released to the containment are described in the previous sections for LOCA.

(b) Homogeneous mixing is assumed. The steam-air mixture and the water phases each have uniform properties. More specifically, thermal equilibrium between the air and the steam is assumed. However, this does not imply thermal equilibrium between the steam-air mixture and the water phase.

(c) Air is taken as an ideal gas, while compressed water and steam tables are employed for water and steam thermodynamic properties.

(d) For the blowdown portion of the LOCA analysis, the discharge flow separates into steam and water phases at the breakpoint. The saturated water phase is at the total containment pressure, while the steam phase is at the partial pressure of the steam in the containment. For the post-blowdown portion of the LOCA analysis, steam and water releases are input separately.

(e) The saturation temperature at the partial pressure of the steam is used for heat transfer to the heat sinks and the fan coolers.

Description of COCO Model Calculation of containment pressure and temperature is accomplished by use of the digital computer code COCO (Reference 11). COCO is a mathematical model of a generalized containment; the proper selection of various options in the code allows the creation of a specific model for particular containment design. The values used in the specific model for different aspects of the containment are derived from plant-specific input data. The COCO code has been used and found acceptable to calculate containment pressure transients for many dry containment plants, most recently including Vogtle Units 1 and 2, Turkey Point Unit 3, Salem Units 1 and 2, Diablo Canyon Units I and 2, Indian Point Unit 2, and Indian Point 3. Transient phenomena within the 49

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 reactor coolant system affect containment conditions by means of convective mass and energy transport through the pipe break.

For analytical rigor and convenience, the containment air-steam-water mixture is separated into a water (pool) phase and a steam-air phase. Sufficient relationships to describe the transient are provided by the equations of conservation of mass and energy as applied to each system, together with appropriate boundary conditions. As thermodynamic equations of state and conditions may vary during the transient, the equations have been derived for all possible cases of superheated or saturated steam and subcooled or saturated water. Switching between states is handled automatically by the code.

Passive Heat Removal The significant heat removal source during the early portion of the transient is the containment structural heat sinks. Provision is made in the containment pressure response analysis for heat transfer through, and heat storage in, both interior and exterior walls. Every wall is divided into a large number of nodes. For each node, a conservation of energy equation expressed in finite-difference form accounts for heat conduction into and out of the node and temperature rise of the node. Table 26 is the summary of the containment structural heat sinks used in the analysis. The thermal properties of each heat sink material are shown in Table 27.

The heat transfer coefficient to the containment structure for the early part of the event is calculated based primarily on the work of Tagami (Reference 12). From this work, it was determined that the value of the heat transfer coefficient can be assumed to increase parabolically to a peak value. In COCO, the value then decreases exponentially to a stagnant heat transfer coefficient which is a function of steam-to-air-weight ratio.

The h for stagnant conditions is based upon Tagami's steady state results.

Tagami presents a plot of the maximum value of the heat transfer coefficient, h, as function of "coolant energy transfer speed", defined as follows:

Total Coolant Energy Transferred into Containment h=

(Containment Volume)(Time Interval to Peak Pressure)

From this, the maximum heat transfer coefficient of steel is calculated:

hmax = 75 -VJ) (Equation 1) 50

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 where:

hmax = maximum value of h (Btu/hr ft2 IF).

tp = time from start of accident to end of blowdown for LOCA and steam line isolation for secondary breaks (sec).

V = containment net free volume (ft3).

E = total coolant energy discharge from time zero to tp(Btu).

75 = material coefficient for steel.

(Note: Paint is accounted for by the thermal conductivity of the material (paint) on the heat sink structure, not by an adjustment on the heat transfer coefficient.)

The basis for the equations is a Westinghouse curve fit to the Tagami data.

The parabolic increase to the peak value is calculated by COCO according to the following equation:

h, = hmax (,P

_ 0 < t <tp (Equation2) where:

hs = heat transfer coefficient between steel and air/steam mixture (Btu/hr ft2 °F).

t = time from start of event (sec).

For concrete, the heat transfer coefficient is taken as 40 percent of the value calculated for steel during the blowdown phase.

The exponential decrease of the heat transfer coefficient to the stagnant heat transfer coefficient is given by:

h, = hstag + (hmax - hstag)eO5(tt P) t> tp (Equation 3) where:

hstag = 2 + 50X, 0 < X < 1.4.

hstag= h for stagnant conditions (Btu/hr ft2 OF).

X = steam-to-air weight ratio in containment.

51

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Active Heat Removal For a large break, the engineered safety features are quickly brought into operation.

Because of the brief period of time required to depressurize the reactor coolant system or the main steam system, the containment safeguards are not a major influence on the blowdown peak pressure; however, they reduce the containment pressure after the blowdown and maintain a low long-term pressure and a low long-term temperature.

RWST, Injection During the injection phase of post-accident operation, the emergency core cooling system pumps water from the refueling water storage tank into the reactor vessel. Since this water enters the vessel at refueling water storage tank temperature, which is less than the temperature of the water in the vessel, it is modeled as absorbing heat from the core until the saturation temperature is reached. Safety injection and containment spray can be operated for a limited time, depending on the refueling water storage tank (RWST) capacity.

RHR, Sump Recirculation After the supply of refueling water is exhausted, the recirculation system is operated to provide long term cooling of the core. In this operation, water is drawn from the sump, cooled in a residual heat removal (RHR) exchanger, then pumped back into the reactor vessel to remove core residual heat and energy stored in the vessel metal. The heat is removed from the RHR heat exchanger by the component cooling water (CCW). The RHR Hxs and CCW Hxs are coupled in a closed loop system, where the ultimate heat sink is the service water cooling to the CCW Hx.

Containment Spray Containment spray (CS) is an active removal mechanism which is used for rapid pressure reduction and for containment iodine removal. During the injection phase of operation, the containment spray pumps draw water from the RWST and spray it into the containment through nozzles mounted high above the operating deck. As the spray droplets fall, they absorb heat from the containment atmosphere. Since the water comes from the RWST, the entire heat capacity of the spray from the RWST temperature to the temperature of the containment atmosphere is available for energy absorption. During the recirculation phase there is a short period of no spray during the switchover of the spray pump from the RWST to RHR piggy back mode. Later spray is terminated upon the entry into ECCS hot leg recirculation (11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />).

When a spray droplet enters the hot, saturated, steam-air containment environment, the vapor pressure of the water at its surface is much less than the partial pressure of the steam in the atmosphere. Hence, there will be diffusion of steam to the drop surface and condensation on the droplet. This mass flow will carry energy to the droplet.

Simultaneously, the temperature difference between the atmosphere and the droplet will cause the droplet temperature and vapor pressure to rise. The vapor pressure of the 52

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 droplet will eventually become equal to the partial pressure of the steam, and the condensation will cease. The temperature of the droplet will essentially equal the temperature of the steam-air mixture.

The equations describing the temperature rise of a falling droplet are as follows.

d d-(Mu) = mhg+q (Equation 4)

where, M = droplet mass u = internal energy m = diffusion rate hg = steam enthalpy q = heat flow rate t = time d *-(M = m(Equation 5)

where, q = hcA*(Ts-T) m = kgA*(Ps-Pv)

A = area hc = coefficient of heat transfer kg = coefficient of mass transfer T = droplet temperature Ts = steam temperature Ps = steam partial pressure Pv = droplet vapor pressure The coefficients of heat transfer (h) and mass transfer (kg) are calculated from the Nusselt number for heat transfer, Nu, and the Nusselt number for mass transfer, Nu'.

Both Nu and Nu' may be calculated from the equations of Ranz and Marshall (Reference 13).

53

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Nu= 2 + 0.6(Re)" 2 (Pr)"*3 (Equation 6) where, Nu = Nusselt number for heat transfer Pr = Prandtl number Re = Reynolds number Nu' = 2 + 0.6(Re) "2 (Sc)1/ 3 (Equation 7) where, Nu' = Nusselt number for mass transfer Sc = Schmidt number Thus, Equations 4 and 5 can be integrated numerically to find the internal energy and mass of the droplet as a function of time as it falls through the atmosphere. Analysis shows that the temperature of the (mass) mean droplet produced by the spray nozzles rises to a value within 99 percent of the bulk containment temperature in less than 2 seconds. Detailed calculations of the heatup of spray droplets in post-accident containment atmospheres by Parsly (Reference 14) show that droplets of all sizes encountered in the containment spray reach equilibrium in a fraction of their residence time in typical pressurized water reactor containment. These results confirm the assumption that the containment spray will be 100 percent effective in removing heat from the atmosphere.

RCFC The reactor containment fan coolers (RCFCs) are another means of heat removal. Each RCFC has a fan which draws in the containment atmosphere from the upper volume of the containment via a return air riser. Since the RCFCs do not use water from the RWST, the mode of operation remains the same both before and after the ECCS change to the recirculation mode. The steam/air mixture is routed through the enclosed RCFC unit, past essential service water cooling coils. The fan then discharges the air through ducting containing a check damper. The discharged air is directed at the lower containment volume. See Table 21 for RCFCs heat removal capability assumed for the containment response analyses.

Acceptance Criteria The containment response for design-basis containment integrity is an ANS Condition IV event, an infrequent fault. The relevant requirements to satisfy Nuclear Regulatory Commission acceptance criteria are as follows.

54

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 A. GDC 10 and GDC 49 from the HBRSEP Unit No.2 FSAR Chapter 3.1. In order to satisfy the requirements of GDC 10 and 49, the peak calculated containment pressure should be less than the containment design pressure of 42 psig; B. HBRSEP Unit No.2 FSAR Chapter 3.1, GDC 52: In order to satisfy the requirements of GDC 52, the calculated pressure at 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> should be less than 50% of the peak calculated value. (This is related to the criteria for doses at 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.)

C. HBRSEP Unit No.2 UFSAR Chapter 15.6.5 requirement the calculated pressure at 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> should be less than 50% of the peak calculated value.

Analysis Results The containment pressure, steam temperature and water (sump) temperature profiles from each of the LOCA cases are shown in Figures 1 through 4 for the DEPS break cases.

The results of the DEHL break are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Note that the DEPS case with maximum ECCS flows and the DEHL case were not reanalyzed and therefore the results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

Double Ended Pump Suction Break with Minimum Safeguards This analysis assumes a loss of offsite power coincidence with a double ended rupture of the RCS piping between the steam generator outlet and the RCS pump inlet (suction).

The associated single failure assumption is the failure of a diesel to start, resulting in one train of ECCS and containment safeguards equipment being available. This combination results in a minimum set of safeguards being available. Further, loss of offsite power delays the actuation times of the safeguards equipment due to the required diesel startup time after receipt of the Safety Injection signal.

The postulated RCS break results in a rapid release of mass and energy to the containment with a resulting rapid rise in both the containment pressure and temperature. This rapid rise in containment pressure results in the generation of a containment Hi signal at 0.76 seconds and a containment Hi-Hi signal at 1.92 seconds.

The containment pressure continues to rise rapidly in response to the release of mass and energy during the blowdown period which ends at 22.6 seconds. The peak pressure during the blowdown period was 38.17 psig. The end of blowdown marks a time when the initial inventory in the RCS has been exhausted and a slow process of filling the RCS downcomer in preparation for reflood has begun. Since the mass and energy release during this period is low, pressure decreases slightly to 37.8 psig and then continues to decrease due to the initiation of the containment spray at 40.12 seconds and fan coolers 46.76 seconds. Reflood continues at a reduced flooding rate due to the buildup of mass in the RCS core which offsets the downcomer head. This reduction in flooding rate and the continued action of the RCFCs and Spray leads to a slowly decreasing pressure out to the end of reflood, which occurs at 230.525 seconds. At this juncture, by design of the Reference 2 model, energy removal from the SG secondary begins at a very much increased rate, resulting in a rise in containment pressure from 230.525 seconds out to 938.62 seconds when peak pressure occurs. By 940.6 seconds, enough energy has been 55

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 removed from the faulted SG to bring the faulted SG secondary pressure down to the containment design pressure of 42 psig. The result of this SG secondary energy release is the ultimate peak pressure for this transient of 41.49 psig at 938.626 seconds. After this event, the mass and energy released is reduced given that most of the energy removal from the SGs has been accomplished. Containment pressure slowly fails out to the cold leg recirculation time of 2442 seconds. At this time, the ECCS is realigned for cold leg recirculation resulting in an increase in the SI temperature due to delivery from the hot sump. At 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />, (39600 seconds) containment spray is terminated as a result of aligning the ECCS for hot leg recirculation. The loss containment spray results in a rapid rise in containment pressure until the steam temperature increases to the level that the fan coolers can remove the decay heat energy at about 60,000 seconds. These changes result in a slower containment pressure reduction rate but containment pressure continues to decrease due to lower decay heat, SG energy release and continued RCFC cooling. This trend continues to the end of the transient at 1.OE+05 seconds. Table 29 provides a detailed time history for the containment pressure, containment steam temperature and the sump temperature.

Double Ended Pump Suction Break with Maximum safeguards The DEPS break with maximum safeguards has a transient history very similar to the minimum safeguards case discussed above. Table 24 provides the key sequence of events and Table 28 shows that a peak pressure of 38.17 psig @18.66 seconds was calculated. Note that the DEPS case with maximum ECCS flows was not reanalyzed and therefore the results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

Double Ended Hot Leg Break with Minimum Safeguards This analysis assumes a loss of offsite power coincident with a double ended rupture of the RCS piping between the reactor vessel outlet nozzle and the steam generator inlet (i.e. a break in the RCS hot leg). The associated single failure assumption is the failure of a diesel to start, resulting in one train of ECCS and containment safeguards equipment being available. This combination results in a minimum set of safeguards being available. Further, loss of offsite power delays the actuation times of the safeguards equipment due to the required diesel startup time after receipt of the Safety Injection signal.

The postulated RCS break results in a rapid release of mass and energy to the containment with a resulting rapid rise in both the containment pressure and temperature. This rapid rise in containment pressure results in the generation of a containment Hi signal at 0.72 seconds and a containment Hi-Hi signal at 2.09 seconds.

The containment pressure continues to rise rapidly in response to the release of mass and energy until the end of blowdown at 19.8 seconds, with the pressure reaching a value of 39.83 psig at 18.66 seconds. The end of blowdown marks a time when the initial inventory in the RCS has been exhausted and a process of filling the RCS downcomer in preparation for reflood has begun. Since the reflood for a hot leg break is very fast due to the low resistance to steam venting posed by the broken hot leg, Westinghouse 56

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 terminates hot leg break mass and energy release transients at end of blowdown. The basis for this is further developed in References 2 and 10.

Note that the DEHL case was not reanalyzed and therefore the results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

Double Ended Hot Leg Break with Maximum Safeguards The DEHL break with maximum safeguards was not analyzed since neither the ECCS pumps nor containment safeguards start prior to the end of blowdown. Thus, the maximum ECCS case would be identical to the minimum ECCS case as discussed above in the DEHL minimum ECCS.

Environmental Qualification Analyses The most limiting LOCA case for EQ considerations is the Double Ended Pump Suction break with the single failure of a loss of a diesel generator as was verified in Reference

20. The single failure of loss of a diesel generator results in one train of pumped safety injection and one train of containment pressure reducing equipment. Thus, in the long-term, energy removal is more limited resulting in higher long-term containment pressures and temperatures. Thus, the Double Ended Pump Suction (DEPS) break with minimum safeguards was reanalyzed to support the qualification of equipment important to LOCA. The mass energy releases calculated in the previous section were used again and the containment initial condition for pressure was changed to be 13.7 psia. While this results in a lower peak pressure, the partial pressure for steam is higher and therefore, equipment inside containment would also reach a higher temperature.

The result for peak component temperature was 263.73°F for this break. Table 30 provides a detailed time history of the containment pressure, containment steam temperature, component temperature and the sump temperature. Table 30 shows that the analysis for EQ was terminated at 100,000 seconds. Reference 20 has previously supplied EQ data out to 1,000,000 Seconds. However, since the major effect of the Reference 5 changes occur prior to 3600 seconds, analysis past 100,000 seconds were deemed unnecessary and the EQ data from 100,000 to 1,000,000 seconds provided in Reference 20 are still applicable to HBRSEP Unit No.2.

The Double Ended Hot Leg (DEHL) break with minimum safeguards was not reanalyzed based on the Reference 5 position that hot leg break are unaffected by the reported issues. The DEHL case has previously calculated a peak component temperature of 259.01°F, which is well below the 2631F EQ limit. Detailed results for both containment pressure and component temperature can be found in Table 31.

The DEPS case with minimum ECCS flow result of 263.73°F exceeds the previous result for HBRSEP Unit No.2 of 261.76°F (Reference 4). Progress Energy/ HBRSEP Unit No.2 should review this increase with regard to their EQ program.

The EQ pressure limit of 42 psig limit has been satisfied by all the LOCA containment analyses.

57

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Conclusion The Double Ended Pump Suction (DEPS) LOCA with minimum ECCS flows has been reanalyzed to address the issues reported by Westinghouse in Reference 5. The Double Ended Pump Suction break with maximum ECCS flows and the Double Ended Hot Leg break were not reanalyzed based on the information provided in Reference 5. The peak pressure for the new DEPS break with minimum ECCS flow was calculated to be 41.49 psig which is less than 42 psig design pressure for HBRSEP Unit No.2. The long-term pressures are well below 50% of the peak value within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The EQ case for the DEPS break with minimum ECCS flow result of 263.73°F exceeds the previous result for HBRSEP Unit No.2 of 261.761F. Progress Energy/ HBRSEP Unit No.2 should review this increase with regard to their EQ program.

58

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 20 LOCA CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS PARAMETERS Service water temperature (°F) 100 RWST water temperature (°F) 100 Initial containment temperature (OF) 130 Initial containment pressure (psia) 15.7 Initial relative humidity (%) 30 Net free volume (ft3) 2.013x 106 Reactor Containment Fan Coolers Total Analysis maximum Analysis minimum Containment High setpoint (psig)

Delay time (sec)

With Offsite Power Without Offsite Power Containment Svrav Pumns Total 2 Analysis maximum 1 Analysis minimum 1 Flowrate (gpm)

Injection phase (per pump)- See Table 22 932 Recirculation phase (total) 932 Containment High High setpoint (psig) 12 Delay time (sec)

With Offsite Power (delay after High High setpoint) 23.5 Without Offsite Power (total time from t=O) 38.2 ECCS Recirculation Switchover, sec Minimum Safeguards 2442.

Maximum Safeguards 1824.

Containment Spray Termination time, (sec)

Minimum Safeguards 39600.

Maximum Safeguards 39600.

59

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 20 LOCA CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS PARAMETERS (Cont'd)

Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Flows Minimum ECCS - (gpm)

Injection alignment Recirculation alignment Piggyback alignment Maximum ECGS - (gpm) I11 Injection alignment Recirculation alignment Piggyback alignment Residual Heat Removal System RHR Heat Exchangers Modeled in analysis 1 Recirculation switchover time, sec Minimum SG 2442.

Maximum SG 1824.

6 UA, 10

• BTU/hr-°F 29.4 Flows - Tube Side and Shell Side - gpm Minimum SG 3877.0 Maximum SG 3877.0 Qsump Shellside

• 8970.

60

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 20 LOCA CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS PARAMETERS (Cont'd)

Component Cooling Water Heat Exchangers Modeled in analysis 1 UA, 106

• BTU/hr-°F 2.2 Flows - Shell Side and Tube Side - gpm Shellside

• 8970.

Tubeside *

(service water) 5000.

Additional heat loads, (BTU/hr) 7.1x 106

• Minimum safeguards data representing one Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) in operation 61

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 21 REACTOR CONTAINMENT FAN COOLER PERFORMANCE Heat Removal Rate [Btu/sec] Per Reactor Containment Temperature (*F) Containment Fan Cooler 130 1820.44 152 3448.69 200 7459.49 263 13112.10 300 16538.24 62

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Table 22 CONTAINMENT SPRAY PERFORMANCE with I Pump Containment Pressure (psig) (gpm) 0 932.

10 932.

20 932.

30 932.

42 932.

63

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 23 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK SEQUENCE OF EVENTS (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Time (sec) Event Description 0.0 Break Occurs, Reactor Trip and Loss of Offsite Power are assumed 0.76 Containment HI-1 Pressure Setpoint Reached 1.92 Containment HI-2 Pressure Setpoint Reached 4.8 Low Pressurizer Pressure SI Setpoint = 1661.4 psia Reached (Safety Injection Begins coincident with Low Pressurizer Pressure SI Setpoint) 12.4 Broken Loop Accumulator Begins Injecting Water 12.6 Intact Loop Accumulator Begins Injecting Water 21.6 Main Feedwater Fully Isolated 22.6 End of Blowdown Phase 40.12 Containment Spray Pump(s) (RWST) start 46.5 Safety Injection Begins 46.725 Broken Loop Accumulator Water Injection Ends 47.725 Intact Loop Accumulator Water Injection Ends 46.76 Reactor Containment Fan Coolers Actuate 230.53 End of Reflood for MIN SI Case 938.63 Peak Pressure and Temperature Occur 940.6 Mass and Energy Release Assumption: Broken Loop SG Equilibration to 56.7 psia 1121.93 Mass and Energy Release Assumption: Intact Loop SG Equilibration to 56.7 psia 2442. RHR stopped for alignment to cold leg recirculation 3042. RHR restarts in cold leg recirculation alignment 4620. High Pressure SI and Spray flow stopped in preparation for piggyback operation 6000. High Pressure SI and Spray restart in piggyback alignment 39600. Containment Spray is Terminated and ECCS is aligned for Hot Leg Recirculation 105 Transient Modeling Terminated 64

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 24 DOUBLE-ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK SEQUENCE OF EVENTS (MAXIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Maximum Safeguards case was not reanalyzed and therefore the Maximum Safeguard case results are identical to the Reference 4 result Time (sec) Event Description 0.0 Break Occurs, Reactor Trip and Loss of Offsite Power are assumed 0.75 Containment HI-1 Pressure Setpoint Reached 1.89 Containment HI-2 Pressure Setpoint Reached 4.7 Low Pressurizer Pressure SI Setpoint = 1661.4 psia Reached (Safety Injection Begins coincident with Low Pressurizer Pressure SI Setpoint) 12.2 Broken Loop Accumulator Begins Injecting Water 12.3 Intact Loop Accumulator Begins Injecting Water 18.667 Peak Pressure and Temperature Occur 21.0 End of Blowdown Phase 21.1 Safety Injection Begins 25.39 Containment Spray Pump(s) (RWST) start 36.15 Reactor Containment Air Recirculaton Fan Coolers Actuate 47.038 Broken Loop Accumulator Water Injection Ends 47.838 Intact Loop Accumulator Water Injection Ends 246.6 End of Reflood for Max SI Case 791.7 Mass and Energy Release Assumption: Broken Loop SG Equilibration to 56.7 psia 1030.4 Mass and Energy Release Assumption: Intact Loop SG Equilibration to 56.7 psia 1824. RHR stopped for alignment to cold leg recirculation 2424. RHR restarts in cold leg recirculation alignment 4002. High Pressure SI and Spray stopped in preparation for piggyback operation 4560. High Pressure SI restarts in piggyback alignment 6000. Spray restarts in piggyback alignment

.39600. Containment Spray is Terminated and ECCS is aligned for Hot Leg Recirculation 106 Transient Modeling Terminated 65

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 25 DOUBLE-ENDED HOT LEG BREAK SEQUENCE OF EVENTS (MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS)

Note that the Double Ended Hot Leg (DEHL) Break case was not reanalyzed and therefore the DEHL case results are identical to the Reference 4 results.

Time (sec) Event Description 0.0 Break Occurs, Reactor Trip and Loss of Offsite Power are assumed 0.72 Containment HI-1 Pressure Setpoint Reached 2.09 Containment HI-2 Pressure Setpoint Reached 4.0 Low Pressurizer Pressure SI Setpoint = 1661.4 psia reached 11.0 Broken Loop Accumulator Begins Injecting Water 11.1 Intact Loop Accumulator Begins Injecting Water 18.66 Peak Pressure and Temperature Occur 19.80 End of Blowdown Phase 19.80 Transient Modeling Terminated 66

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 26 CONTAINMENT HEAT SINKS No. Material Heat Transfer Area ft2 Thickness ft 1 Containment Cylinder 46,926 Stainless Steel 0.00158 Insulation & Epoxy 0.1045 Carbon Steel 0.03285 Concrete 3.5 2 Uninsulated Portion of the 3,462 Containment Cylinder Epoxy 0.0005 Carbon Steel 0.090026 Concrete 3.5 3 Containment Dome 6,456 Stainless Steel 0.00158 Insulation & Epoxy 0.1045 Carbon Steel 0.0417 Concrete 2.5 4 Containment Dome 20,094 Epoxy 0.0005 Carbon Steel 0.0417 Concrete 2.5 5 Interior Unlined Concrete 59846 Epoxy 0.001297 Concrete 1.97 6 Interior Unlined Concrete 3659 (W/internal steel) Flooded Epoxy 0.00292 Concrete 1.74 Carbon Steel 0.0221 Concrete 8.46 7 Interior Unlined Concrete 7318 (W/internal Steel) Dry Epoxy 0.00292 Concrete 1.74 Carbon Steel 0.0221 Concrete 8.46 8 Interior lined Concrete 8847 Stainless Steel 0.00198 Concrete 3.388 67

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 26 (Cont'd) CONTAINMENT HEAT SINKS No. Material Heat Transfer Area ft2 Thickness ft 9 Structural and Misc Exposed Steel - 101757 Epoxy coated carbon steel Epoxy 0.000583 Carbon Steel 0.035065 10 Structural and Misc Exposed Steel - 2708 Bare Stainless Steel 0.01425 11 Galvanized Steel 54865 Zinc 0.0000833 Carbon Steel 0.01102 12 Insulted Copper Cable (Used for EQ 0.059 Calc only)

Ilyplon 0.00125 EPR 0.0025 Copper 0.005667 13 Carbon Steel Plate (Used for EQ) 0.0872 Carbon Steel 0.005208 68

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 27 THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CONTAINMENT HEAT SINKS THERMAL VOLUMETRIC HEAT Material CONDUCTIVITY CAPACITY (Btu/hr-ft - °F) (Btu/ft3 - °F)

Stainless Steel 9.4 60.1 Carbon Steel 29.53 56.9 Zinc 65.3 40.7 Concrete 1.05 22.5 Insulation & Epoxy 0.01088 0.58 Epoxy 0.23 18.3 Hyplon 0.125 32.537 EPR 0.1445 20.5 Copper 219.0 50.778 Carbon Steel (EQ 27.0 48.02 component) 69

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 28 LOCA CONTAINMENT RESPONSE RESULTS (LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER ASSUMED)

CASE PEAK PEAK PRESSURE STEAM PRESS. STEAM (psig) TEMPERATURE (psig) TEMP. @ hours 24 (OF)

(OF) @24 hours DEPS 41.49 @ 263.293 @ 12.19@ 192.1@

938.626 938.626 sec 86,400 sec 86,400 sec MINSI sec DEPS 38.17 @ 258.43 @ 5.621@ 154.4@

18.66 sec 18.66 sec 87,120 sec 87,120 sec MAXSI DEHL 39.83 @ 259.8 @ NA NA MINSI 18.66 sec 18.66 sec (30% Relative Humidity Case)

DEHL NA NA NA NA MAXSI 70

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 29 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS TIME PRESSURE STEAM TEMP SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) (DEG-F) TEMP

_______ _________ (DE -F)

.00100000 1.000 130.00 130.00

.25000000 2.458 142.71 169.40

.50000000 3.952 155.59 185.55

.75000000 5.476 167.88 194.99 1.0000000 6.959 178.89 201.35 1.5000000 9.782 197.28 209.91 2.0000000 12.43 211.76 215.78 2.5000000 14.79 222.52 220.02 3.0000000 16.59 228.93 223.01 3.5000000 18.02 232.71 225.33 4.0000000 19.25 235.18 227.26 4.5000000 20.37 236.92 228.95 5.0000000 21.43 238.22 230.48 5.5000000 22.47 239.37 231.94 6.0000000 23.49 240.31 233.32 6.5000000 24.46 241.06 234.62 7.0000000 25.40 241.64 235.87 7.5000000 26.31 242.07 237.06 8.0000000 27.22 242.52 238.18 8.5000000 28.10 242.89 239.17 9.0000000 28.93 243.06 240.10 9.5000000 29.75 243.79 241.04 10.000000 30.55 244.85 241.88 10.500000 31.33 246.36 242.67 11.000000 32.06 247.76 243.42 11.500000 32.76 249.06 244.12 12.000000 33.42 250.27 244.78 12.500000 34.03 251.38 245.39 13.000000 34.61 252.40 245.97 13.500000 35.13 253.32 246.52 14.000000 35.60 254.13 247.05 14.500000 36.02 254.86 247.56 15.000000 36.41 255.52 248.02 15.500000 36.80 256.17 248.47 16.000000 37.20 256.84 248.92 16.500000 37.54 257.40 249.28 17.000000 37.77 257.78 249.49 17.500000 37.94 258.06 249.73 18.000000 38.05 258.25 249.92 18.500000 38.13 258.37 250.12 19.000000 38.16 258.43 250.34 19.500000 38.17 258.44 250.55 200000 38.15 258.41 250.73 20.500000 38.11 258.34 250.88 71

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 29 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS TIME PRESSURE STEAM TEMP SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) (DEG-F) TEMP (DEG-F) 21.000000 38.05 258.24 251.00 21.500000 37.98 258.12 251.09 22.000000 37.90 257.99 251.16 22.500000 37.81 257.85 251.19 23.000000 37.73 257.71 251.20 23.500000 37.64 257.57 251.20 24.000000 37.57 257.45 251.21 24.500000 37.49 257.32 251.21 25.000000 37.42 257.20 251.21 25.500000 37.35 257.09 251.21 26.000000 37.29 256.98 251.22 26.500000 37.23 256.88 251.22 27.000000 37.17 256.79 251.22 27.500000 37.11 256.69 251.22 28.000000 37.06 256.60 251.22 28.500000 37.01 256.52 251.22 29.000000 36.96 256.44 251.22 29.500000 36.92 256.36 251.22 34.500000 36.55 255.74 249.39 39.500000 36.31 255.32 245.94 44.500000 36.13 255.01 243.41 49.500000 35.97 254.74 241.25 54.500000 35.96 254.66 241.46 59.500000 35.98 254.61 241.67 64.500000 35.99 254.56 241.82 69.500000 36.00 254.54 241.97 74.500000 36.00 254.53 242.11 79.500000 36.00 254.53 242.27 84.500000 36.00 254.54 242.41 89.500000 36.01 254.55 242.54 94.500000 36.03 254.57 242.68 99.500000 36.04 254.60 242.81 104.50000 36.06 254.63 242.94 109.50000 36.08 254.66 243.08 114.50000 36.10 254.69 243.19 119.50000 36.12 254.73 243.32 124.50000 36.14 254.77 243.44 129.50000 36.16 254.81 243.57 134.50000 36.19 254.85 243.69 139.50000 36.21 254.89 243.82 144.50000 36.24 254.93 243.94 149.50000 36.26 254.98 244.06 154.50000 36.29 255.02 244.18 159.50000 36.32 255.07 244.31 164.50000 36.35 255.11 244.43 72

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 29 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS TIME PRESSURE STEAM TEMP SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) (DEG-F) TEMP

__________(DEG-F) 169.50000 36.37 255.16 244.56 174.50000 36.40 255.20 244.68 179.50000 36.43 255.25 244.81 184.50000 36.45 255.29 244.94 189.50000 36.48 255.34 245.07 194.50000 36.50 255.38 245.21 199.50000 36.53 255.41 245.35 204.50000 36.55 255.45 245.47 209.50000 36.57 255.48 245.61 214.50000 36.59 255.51 245.75 2 19.50000 36.60 255.54 245.89 224.50000 36.62 255.57 246.02 229.50000 36.63 255.59 246.16 234.50000 36.65 255.62 246.31 239.50000 36.67 255.65 246.47 244.50000 36.69 255.69 246.63 249.50000 36.72 255.73 246.78 254.50000 36.74 255.77 246.94 259.50000 36.77 255.81 247.09 264.50000 36.79 255.86 247.24 269.50000 36.82 255.90 247.40 274.50000 36.85 255.95 247.54 279.50000 36.88 256.00 247.69 284.50000 36.91 256.04 247.83 289.50000 36.94 256.09 247.98 294.50000 36.97 256.14 248.12 299.50000 37.00 256.20 248.26 304.50000 37.03 256.25 248.40 309.50000 37.06 256.30 248.54 3 14.50000 37.09 256.35 248.68 319.50000 37.12 256.41 248.81 324.50000 37.16 256.46 248.95 329.50000 37.19 256.51 249.08 334.50000 37.22 256.57 249.21 339.50000 37.26 256.63 249.34 344.50000 37.29 256.68 249.47 349.50000 37.32 256.74 249.60 354.50000 37.36 256.79 249.73 359.50000 37.39 256.85 249.86 364.50000 37.43 256.91 249.98 369.50000 37.46 256.96 250.11 374.50000 3.0257.02 250.23 37.000 37.53 257.08 250.36 384.50000 37.57 257.13 250.48 389.50000 37.60 257.19 250.60 73

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 29 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS TIME PRESSURE STEAM TEMP SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) (DEG-F) TEMP (DEG-F) 394.50000 37.64 257.25 250.72 399.50000 37.67 257.30 250.84 404.50000 37.71 257.36 250.96 409.50000 37.74 257.42 251.07 414.50000 37.77 257.47 251.19 419.50000 37.81 257.53 251.31 424.50000 37.85 257.59 251.42 429.50000 37.88 257.65 251.53 434.50000 37.92 257.71 251.65 439.50000 37.96 257.77 251.76 444.50000 38.00 257.84 251.87 449.50000 38.04 257.90 251.98 454.50000 38.07 257.96 252.09 459.50000 38.11 258.02 252.20 464.50000 38.15 258.08 252.31 469.50000 38.19 258.14 252.41 474.50000 38.22 258.20 252.52 479.50000 38.26 258.26 252.62 484.50000 38.30 258.32 252.73 489.50000 38.33 258.38 252.83 494.50000 38.37 258.44 252.94 499.50000 38.41 258.50 253.04 504.50000 38.45 258.56 253.14 509.50000 38.48 258.62 253.24 514.50000 38.52 258.69 253.34 5 19.50000 38.56 258.75 253.44 524.50000 38.60 258.81 253.54 529.50000 38.64 258.87 253.64 534.50000 38.68 258.93 253.74 539.50000 38.72 258.99 253.84 544.50000 38.75 259.05 253.94 549.50000 38.79 259.11 254.03 554.50000 38.83 259.17 254.13 559.50000 38.86 259.23 254.22 564.50000 38.90 259.29 254.32 569.50000 38.94 259.35 254.41 574.50000 38.98 259.41 254.51 579.50000 39.01 259.47 254.60 584.50000 39.05 259.53 254.69 589.50000 39.09 259.59 254.78 594.50000 39.13 259.65 254.87 599.50000 39.16 259.71 254.96 604.500 39.20 259.76 255.06 609.50000 39.24 259.82 255.14 614.50000 39.27 259.88 255.23 74

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 29 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS TIME PRESSURE STEAM TEMP SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) (DEG-F) TEMP

__________ ___________ (DEG-F) 619.50000 39.31 259.93 255.32 624.50000 39.34 259.99 255.41 629.50000 39.38 260.05 255.50 634.50000 39.42 260.11 255.59 639.50000 39.45 260.17 255.67 644.50000 39.49 260.22 255.76 649.50000 39.53 260.28 255.84 654.50000 39.56 260.34 255.93 659.50000 39.60 260.39 256.01 664.50000 39.63 260.44 256.10 669.50000 39.67 260.50 256.18 674.50000 39.70 260.55 256.27 679.50000 39.74 260.61 256.35 684.50000 39.77 260.67 256.43 689.50000 39.81 260.72 256.51 694.50000 39.84 260.78 256.60 699.50000 39.88 260.83 256.68 704.50000 39.91 260.88 256.76 709.50000 39.95 260.94 256.84 7 14.50000 39.98 260.99 256.92 719.50000 40.02 261.05 257.00 724.50000 40.05 261.10 257.08 729.50000 40.09 261.16 257.15 734.50000 40.12 261.21 257.23 739.50000 40.16 261.26 257.31 744.50000 40.19 261.32 257.39 749.50000 40.22 261.37 257.47 754.50000 40.26 261.42 257.54 759.50000 40.29 261.47 257.62 764.50000 40.32 261.52 257.69 769.50000 40.36 261.57 257.77 774.50000 40.39 261.62 257.84 779.50000 40.42 261.68 257.91 784.50000 40.46 261.73 257.98 789.50000 40.49 261.78 258.05 794.50000 40.52 261.83 258.12 799.50000 40.56 261.88 258.19 804.50000 40.59 261.93 258.25 809.50000 40.62 261.98 258.32 814.50000 40.66 262.04 258.38 819.50000 40.69 262.09 258.45 824.50000 40.73 262.14 258.51 829.50000 40.76 262.19 258.57 834.50000 40.79 262.24 258.63 839.50000 40.83 262.29 258.69 75

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 29 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS TIME PRESSURE STEAM TEMP SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) (DEG-F) TEMP

____________ (DEG-F) 844.50000 40.86 262.35 258.75 849.50000 40.89 262.40 258.81 854.50000 40.93 262.45 258.87 859.50000 40.96 262.50 258.93 864.50000 40.99 262.55 258.99 869.50000 41.03 262.60 259.04 874.50000 41.06 262.65 259.10 879.50000 41.09 262.70 259.15 884.50000 41.13 262.75 259.21 889.50000 41.16 262.80 259.26 894.50000 41.19 262.85 259.32 899.50000 41.23 262.91 259.37 904.50000 41.26 262.96 259.42 909.50000 41.29 263.01 259.48 914.50000 41.33 263.06 259.53 919.50000 41.36 263.11 259.58 924.50000 41.39 263.15 259.63 929.50000 41.43 263.20 259.68 934.50000 41.46 263.25 259.73 938.626 41.49 263.29 259.77 939.50000 41.48 263.29 259.78 944.50000 41.46 263.26 259.833 949.50000 41.44 263.22 259.88 954.50000 41.42 263.19 259.94 959.50000 41.40 263.16 259.99 964.50000 41.38 263.13 260.04 969.50000 41.36 263.10 260.09 974.50000 41.34 263.07 260.14 979.50000 41.33 263.04 260.18 984.50000 41.31 263.02 260.23 989.50000 41.29 262.99 260.28 994.50000 41.27 262.96 260.33 999.50000 41.26 262.93 260.38 1099.0000 40.95 262.45 261.26 1199.0000 40.75 262.11 258.69 1299.0000 40.51 261.73 252.85 1399.0000 40.28 261.36 247.74 1499.0000 40.06 261.00 243.16 1599.0000 39.84 260.64 239.01 1699.0000 39.62 260.27 235.25 1799.0000 39.40 259.91 231.82 1899.0000 39.17 259.53 228.68 99.0000 38.95 259.15 225.79 2099.0000 38.72 258.77 223.13 2199.0000 38.49 258.38 220.65 76

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 29 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS TIME PRESSURE STEAM TEMP SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) (DEG-F) TEMP (DEG-F) 2299.0000 38.25 257.97 218.37 2399.0000 38.01 257.56 216.23 2499.0000 37.76 257.14 214.24 2599.0000 37.63 256.91 214.86 2699.0000 37.48 256.66 215.45 2799.0000 37.34 256.41 216.01 2899.0000 37.18 256.16 216.57 2999.0000 37.03 255.89 217.11 3099.0000 36.87 255.62 217.64 3199.0000 36.59 255.13 219.19 3299.0000 36.31 254.66 220.67 3399.0000 36.04 254.18 222.06 3499.0000 35.77 253.71 223.39 3599.0000 35.49 253.23 224.64 3699.0000 35.12 252.56 225.48 3799.0000 34.69 251.81 226.04 3899.0000 34.28 251.05 226.57 3999.0000 33.87 250.31 227.07 4999.0000 31.19 245.24 229.68 5999.0000 30.92 244.70 229.03 6999.0000 28.87 240.57 229.03 7999.0000 26.18 234.74 228.89 8999.0000 23.91 229.42 228.34 9999.0000 21.97 224.50 227.45 19999.000 13.87 199.02 212.52 29999.000 11.30 188.29 199.31 39999.000 9.775 180.87 189.46 49999.000 13.01 195.59 187.52 59999.000 13.31 196.79 186.24 69999.000 13.07 195.82 185.02 79999.000 12.57 193.73 184.32 89999.000 11.97 191.18 183.43 99999.000 11.35 188.42 182.57 100000.00 11.35 188.42 182.57 77

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 30 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS - EQ RESULT TIME PRESSURE STEAM COMPONENT SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) TEMP TEMP WATER (DEG-F) (DEG-F) TEMP

_______ ________ DEG-F)

.00100000 -1.0000 130.000 130.000 130.000

.25000000 .47447 144.554 131.639 166.293

.50000000 1.9805 158.949 137.873 181.499

.75000000 3.5135 172.421 147.817 190.567 1.0000000 5.0025 184.267 159.394 196.776 1.5000000 7.8320 203.620 182.099 205.278 2.0000000 10.482 218.474 201.092 211.198 2.5000000 12.841 229.258 215.601 215.517 3.0000000 14.637 235.458 223.478 218.575 3.5000000 16.052 238.926 228.185 220.953 4.0000000 17.276 241.058 231.220 222.944 4.5000000 18.393 242.461 233.285 224.682 5.0000000 19.444 243.442 234.743 226.251 5.5000000 20.482 244.296 235.923 227.754 6,0000000 21.487 244.966 236.854 229.175 6.5000000 22.459 245.469 237.578 230.524 7.0000000 23.394 245.807 238.116 231.808 7.5000000 24.297 246.028 238.512 233.035 8.0000000 25.200 246.278 238.891 234.193 8.5000000 26.079 246.456 239.208 235.211 9.0000000 26.908 246.452 239.368 236.171 9.5000000 27.685 246.284 239.377 237.076 10.000000 28.416 245.977 239.251 237.935 10.500000 29.162 246.815 239.923 238.751 11.000000 29.900 248.218 241.251 239.526 11.500000 30.598 249.520 242.571 240.254 12.000000 31.255 250.725 243.841 240.936 12.500000 31.873 251.840 245.047 241.573 13.000000 32.448 252.863 246.178 !242.1d70 13.500000 32.965 253.771 247.215 242.744 14.000000 33.434 254.584 248.161 243.295 14.500000 33.863 255.321 249.030 243.824 15.000000 34.25 1 255.98 1 249.827 244.298 15.500000 34.638 256.634 250.600 244.777 16.000000 35.043 257.310 251.391 245.243 16.500000 35.380 257.869 252.079 245.618 17.000000 35.609 258.246 252.617 245.850 17.500000 35.781 258.528 253.052 246.090 18.000000 35.898 258.720 253.397 246.297 18.500000 35.974 258.842 253.669 246.505 19.000000 36.013 258.906 253.879 246.740 19.500000 36.019 258.916 254.031 246.963 IF20.0-00000 36.003 258.889 254.138 247.151 78

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 30 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS - EQ RESULT TIME PRESSURE STEAM COMPONENT SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) TEMP TEMP WATER (DEG-F) (DEG-F) TEMP

________ ________ __________ (DEG-F) 20.500000 35.962 258.822 254.205 247.308 21.000000 35.906 258.730 254.241 247.437 21.500000 35.834 258.612 254.248 247.539 22.000000 35.753 258.479 254.235 247.616 22.500000 35.669 258.342 254.212 247.657 23.000000 35.585 258.203 254.183 247.670 23.500000 35.503 258.068 254.152 247.679 24.000000 35.427 257.943 254.126 247.688 24.500000 35.351 257.817 254.099 247.695 25.000000 35.280 257.699 254.074 247.703 25.500000 35.213 257.587 254.052 247.709 26.000000 35.148 257.480 254.033 247.717 26.500000 35.087 257.378 254.0 16 247.722 27.000000 35.029 257.28 1 254.001 247.729 27.500000 34.973 257.188 253.988 247.734 28.000000 34.920 257.099 253.977 247.739 28.500000 34.869 257.014 253.967 247.744 29.000000 34.820 256.933 253.959 247.749 29.500000 34.773 256.854 253 .953 247.752 34.500000 34.399 256.222 253.931 246.012 39.500000 34.143 255.784 253.959 242.729 44.500000 33.955 255.461 253.999 240.356 49.500000 33.788 255.172 253.998 238.600 54.500000 33.768 255.065 254.060 238.825 59.500000 33.769 254.995 254.134 239.044 64.500000 33.775 254.934 254.197 239.235 69.500000 33.770 254.888 254.257 239.392 74.500000 33.752 254.855 254.312 239.539 79.500000 33.743 254.840 254.373 239.691 84.500000 33.741 254.836 254.433 239.848 89.500000 33.745 254.842 254.495 240.024 94.500000 33.748 254.846 254.548 240.179 99.500000 33.753 254.856 254.599 240.323 104.50000 33.762 254.870 254.649 240.465 109.50000 33.773 254.889 254.699 240.606 114.50000 33.787 254.911 254.747 240.743 119.50000 33.802 254.937 254.795 240.882 124.50000 33.818 254.964 254.841 241.003 129.50000 33.837 254.996 254.888 241.136 134.50000 33.857 255.029 254.935 241.273 139.50000 33.877 255.064 254.982 241.400 144.50000 33.900 255.102 255.030 241.536 149.50000 33.923 255.140 255.077 241.663 154.50000 33.947 255.181 255.125 241.798 79

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 30 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS - EQ RESULT TIME PRESSURE STEAM COMPONENT SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) TEMP TEMP WATER (DEG-F) (DEG-F) TEMP

________(DEG-F) 159.50000 33.971 255.223 255.173 241.926 164.50000 33.997 255.266 255.221 242.058 169.50000 34.023 255.310 255.270 242.192 174.50000 34.048 255.353 255.317 242.327 179.50000 34.074 255.397 255.364 242.463 184.50000 34.099 255.439 255.409 242.600 189.50000 34.124 255.480 255.453 242.732 194.50000 34.148 255.521 255.496 242.869 199.50000 34.172 255.560 255.537 243.018 204.50000 34.193 255.596 255.575 243.152 209.50000 34.2 14 255.631 255.611 243.294 214.50000 34.232 255.662 255.645 243.438 2 19.50000 34.250 255.692 255.675 243.577 224.50000 34.266 255.718 255.703 243.720 229.50000 34.280 255.742 255.728 243.860 234.50000 34.299 255.773 255.759 244.020 239.50000 34.323 255.812 255.799 244.181 244.50000 34.347 255.854 255.84 1 244.342 249.50000 34.373 255.897 255.884 244.502 254.50000 34.400 255.941 255.929 244.660 259.50000 34.427 255.987 255.974 244.815 264.50000 34.455 256.034 256.021 244.972 269.50000 34.485 256.083 256.071 245.125 274.50000 34.515 256.134 256.121 245.274 279.50000 34.546 256.186 256.172 245.424 284.50000 34.577 256.238 256.224 245.572 289.50000 34.609 256.291 256.277 245.719 294.50000 34.641 256.344 256.331 245.865 299.50000 34.675 256.400 256.386 246.009 304.50000 34.708 256.457 256.44224.2 309.50000 34.743 256.513 256.499 246.292 3 14.50000 34.777 256.570 256.556 246.433 319.50000 34.811 256.628 256.613 246.571 324.50000 34.846 256.685 256.670 246.710 329.50000 34.882 256.745 256.730 246.846 334.50000 34.918 256.804 256.789 246.982 339.50000 34.954 256.864 256.849 247.115 344.50000 34.990 256.924 256.908 247.249 349.50000 35.026 256.983 256.968 247.380 354.50000 35.062 257.043 257.027 247.511 359.50000 35.099 257.104 257.088 247.641 364.50000 35.136 257.165 257.149 247.770 369.50000 35.172 257.226 257.209 247.896 374.50000 35.209 257.286 257.270 248.024 80

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 30 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS - EQ RESULT TIME PRESSURE STEAM COMPONENT SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) TEMP TEMP WATER (DEG-F) (DEG-F) TEMP

_______ ________ (DEG-F) 379.50000 35.246 257.346 257.330 248.149 384.50000 35.282 257.406 257.390 248.274 389.50000 35.319 257.467 257.451 248.397 394.50000 35.356 257.528 257.512 248.521 399.50000 35.393 257.589 257.573 248.642 404.50000 35.430 257.650 257.633 248.764 409.50000 35.467 257.7 10 257.693 248.883 414.50000 35.503 257.769 257.753 249.003 419.50000 35.541 257.830 257.814 249.120 424.50000 35.579 257.893 257.876 249.238 429.50000 35.618 257.957 257.940 249.353 434.50000 35.658 258.022 258.005 249.469 439.50000 35.698 258.088 258.07 1 249.582 444.50000 35.738 258.153 258.136 249.696 449.50000 35.778 258.219 258.201 249.808 454.50000 35.818 258.283 258.266 249.921 459.50000 35.857 258.347 258.330 250.031 464.50000 35.896 258.411 258.393 250.142 469.50000 35.936 258.475 258.458 250.251 474.50000 35.976 258.539 258.522 250.361 479.50000 36.0 15 258.602 258.585 250.468 484.50000 36.053 258.665 258.648 250.576 489.50000 36.092 258.727 258.710 250.682 494.50000 36.129 258.788 258.771 250.789 499.50000 36.168 258.851 258.834 250.894 504.50000 36.208 258.915 258.898 250.999 509.50000 36.248 258.980 258.963 251.102 514.50000 36.289 259.046 259.029 251.206 519.50000 36.330 259.112 259.095 251.307 524.50000 36.370 259.177 259.159 251.410 529.50000 36.410 259.241 259.223 251.510 534.50000 36.450 259.304 259.286 251.611 539.50000 36.489 259.367 259.350 251.710 544.50000 36.528 259.430 259.413 251.810 549.50000 36.567 259.492 259.475 25 1.909 554.50000 36.605 259.553 259.536 252.008 559.50000 36.643 259.614 259.597 252.105 564.50000 36.681 259.674 259.657 252.202 569.50000 36.720 259.736 259.719 252.298 574.50000 36.758 259.798 259.781 252.395 579.50000 36.798 259.860 259.843 252.489 584.50000 36.837 259.923 1 259.906 252.584 589.50000 36.876 259.986 259.969 252.677 594.50000 36.915 260.047 260.030 252.771 81

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 30 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS - EQ RESULT TIME PRESSURE STEAM COMPONENT SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) TEMP TEMP WATER (DEG-F) (DEG-F) TEMP

_____ _ _______(DEG-F) 599.50000 36.953 260.108 260.091 252.864 604.50000 36.991 260.167 260.150 252.957 609.50000 37.028 260.226 260.210 253.048 614.50000 37.064 260.284 260.268 253.141 619.50000 37.101 260.342 260.325 253.231 624.50000 37.138 260.401 260.384 253.322 629.50000 37.176 260.461 260.444 253.411 634.50000 37.215 260.522 260.506 253.501 639.50000 37.253 260.583 260.566 253.589 644.50000 37.291 260.642 260.626 253.678 649.50000 37.328 260.701 260.685 253.765 654.50000 37.365 260.759 260.742 253.853 659.50000 37.401 260.815 260.799 253.940 664.50000 37.437 260.871 260.855 254.027 669.50000 37.472 260.927 260.911 254.113 674.50000 37.508 260.984 260.968 254.199 679.50000 37.546 261.043 261.027 254.284 684.50000 37.583 261.101 261.085 254.368 689.50000 37.620 261.159 261.143 254.452 694.50000 37.656 261.215 261.199 254.536 699.50000 37.691 261.270 261.255 254.619 704.50000 37.726 261.325 261.309 254.702 709.50000 37.762 261.380 261.364 254.784 714.50000 37.797 261.436 261.420 254.867 719.50000 37.834 261.493 261.477 254.947 724.50000 37.870 261.549 261.534 255.029 729.50000 37.906 261.605 261.590 255.109 734.50000 37.942 261.660 261.645 255.190 739.50000 37.977 261.715 261.700 255.269 744.50000 38.012 261.769 261.754 255.349 749.50000 38.047 261.823 261.808 255.427 754.50000 38.081 261.876 261.861 255.507 759.50000 38.115 261.929 261.914 255.585 764.50000 38.149 261.981 261.966 255.663 769.50000 38.182 262.033 262.018 255.740 774.50000 38.216 262.085 262.070 255.818 779.50000 38.249 262.137 262.122 255.894 784.50000 38.283 262.188 262.173 255.971 789.50000 38.316 262.239 262.225 256.047 794.50000 38.349 262.291 262.276 256.123 799.50000 38.382 262.342 262.327 256.198 804.50000 38.416 262.393 262.378 256.273 809.50000 38.449 262.444 262.429 256.346 814.50000 38.482 262.495 262.480 256.420 82

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 30 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS - EQ RESULT TIME PRESSURE STEAM COMPONENT SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) TEMP TEMP WATER (DEG-F) (DEG-F) TEMP

_________(DEG-F) 819.50000 38.515 262.546 262.532 256.491 824.50000 38.548 262.597 262.583 256.562 829.50000 38.582 262.648 262.634 256.632 834.50000 38.615 262.699 262.685 256.701 839.50000 38.648 262.750 262.736 256.769 844.50000 38.682 262.801 262.787 256.837 849.50000 38.715 262.852 262.838 256.903 854.50000 38.748 262.902 262.888 256.970 859.50000 38.781 262.953 262.939 257.035 864.50000 38.815 263.004 262.990 257.100 869.50000 38.848 263.054 263.040 257.164 874.50000 38.881 263.104 263.091 257.228 879.50000 38.914 263.155 263.141 257.291 884.50000 38.947 263.205 263.191 257.353 889.50000 38.980 263.255 263.241 257.415 894.50000 39.012 263.305 263.291 257.476 899.50000 39.045 263.355 263.341 257.537 904.50000 39.078 263.404 263.390 257.597 909.50000 39.111 263.454 263.440 257.656 914.50000 39.143 263.503 263.490 257.716 9 19.50000 39.176 263.553 263.539 257.774 924.50000 39.208 263.602 263.588 257.832 929.50000 39.241 263.651 263.637 257.889 934.50000 39.273 263.700 263.686 257.946 939.50000 39.294 263.73 1 263.720 258.005 944.50000 39.275 263.702 263.693 258.063 949.50000 39.254 263.669 263.663 258.121 954.50000 39.234 263.638 263.634 258.180 959.50000 39.215 263.607 263.605 258.237 964.50000 39.195 263.577 263.576 258.294 969.50000 39.177 263.548 263.548 258.35 1 974.50000 39.158 263.518 263.520 258.407 979.50000 39.140 263.490 263.492 258.463 984.50000 39.122 263.462 263.465 258.519 989.50000 39.104 263.434 263.438 258.574 994.50000 39.087 263.407 263.411 258.628 999.50000 39.070 263.380 263.385 258.683 1099.5000 38.769 262.904 262.910 259.679 1199.5000 38.579 262.596 262.601 258.284 1299.5000 38.334 262.203 262.208 252.503 1399.5000 38.100 261.825 261.830 247.348 1499.5000 37.876 261.459 261.464 242.777 1599.5000 37.649 261.089 261.094 238.663 1699.5000 37.426 260.722 260.727 234.914 83

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 30 DOUBLE ENDED PUMP SUCTION BREAK MINIMUM ECCS FLOWS - EQ RESULT TIME PRESSURE STEAM COMPONENT SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) TEMP TEMP WATER (DEG-F) (DEG-F) TEMP (DEG-F) 1799.5000 37.199 260.347 260.352 231.514 1899.5000 36.972 259.971 259.976 228.380 1999.5000 36.741 259.585 259.591 225.519 2099.5000 36.509 259.197 259.202 222.857 2199.5000 36.270 258.796 258.801 220.414 2299.5000 36.031 258.391 258.396 218.123 2399.5000 35.784 257.972 257.978 216.011 2499.5000 35.580 257.624 257.628 214.967 2599.5000 35.436 257.382 257.385 215.595 2699.5000 35.288 257.132 257.136 216.161 2799.5000 35.136 256.876 256.879 216.735 2899.5000 34.983 256.615 256.619 217.273 2999.5000 34.826 256.348 256.352 217.818 3099.5000 34.618 255.993 255.998 218.724 3199.5000 34.335 255.507 255.514 220.264 3299.5000 34.059 255.031 255.038 221.703 3399.5000 33.783 254.552 254.559 223.081 3499.5000 33.509 254.074 254.080 224.372 3599.5000 33.234 253.591 253.597 225.610 3699.5000 32.896 252.992 253.001 226.551 3799.5000 32.464 252.223 252.233 227.088 3899.5000 32.048 251.472 251.483 227.584 3999.5000 31.636 250.723 250.733 228.054 4999.5000 29.145 246.016 246.016 230.258 5999.5000 28.812 245.366 245.367 229.595 6999.5000 26.649 240.994 241.003 229.623 7999.5000 23.951 235.135 235.143 229.463 8999.5000 21.673 229.779 229.786 228.878 9999.5000 19.721 224.828 224.834 227.956 19999.500 11.615 199.120 199.122 212.693 29999.500 9.0652 188.321 188.322 199.310 39999.500 7.6254 181.271 181.264 189.444 49999.500 10.751 195.630 195.629 187.497 59999.500 11.041 196.803 196.803 186.215 69999.500 10.804 195.834 195.834 184.988 79999.500 10.311 193.773 193.773 184.299 89999.500 9.7098 191.164 191.164 183.399 99999.500 9.1081 188.441 188.442 182.546 100000.00 9.1081 188.441 188.442 182.546 84

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 TABLE 31 DOUBLE ENDED HOT LEG - EQ RESULTS TIME PRESSURE STEAM TEMP COMPONENT SUMP (SEC) (PSIG) (DEG-F) TEMP WATER (DEG-F) TEMP (DEG-F) 0.0010 -1.000 130.00 130.00 130.00

.50000 2.361 159.51 138.23 176.97 1.0000 4.983 180.49 157.73 191.87 1.5000 7.428 196.79 177.56 200.88 2.0000 9.728 209.52 194.11 207.30 2.5000 11.85 219.28 207.03 212.24 3.0000 13.80 226.64 215.44 216.26 3.5000 15.59 232.18 221.74 219.67 4.0000 17.24 236.43 226.67 222.68 4.5000 18.80 239.79 230.63 225.39 5.0000 20.29 242.49 233.89 227.88 5.5000 21.69 244.62 236.57 230.16 6.0000 23.03 246.30 238.76 232.26 6.5000 24.25 247.43 240.46 234.09 7.0000 25.34 247.94 241.55 235.57 7.5000 26.36 248.20 242.33 236.93 8.0000 27.32 248.26 242.88 238.19 8.5000 28.22 248.12 243.21 239.36 9.0000 29.05 247.79 243.33 240.43 9.5000 29.83 247.34 243.30 241.43 10.000 30.62 248.09 244.02 242.34 10.500 31.40 249.55 245.52 243.19 11.000 32.14 250.89 246.99 243.96 11.500 32.82 252.11 248.38 244.65 12.000 33.45 253.23 249.68 245.25 12.500 34.04 254.26 250.89 245.77 13.000 34.58 255.19 252.01 246.19 13.500 35.09 256.05 253.05 246.50 14.000 35.55 256.82 254.00 246.73 14.500 35.96 257.51 254.86 246.88 15.000 36.32 258.10 255.63 246.99 15.500 36.62 258.60 256.29 247.07 16.000 36.89 259.03 256.88 247.13 16.500 37.12 259.41 257.41 247.18 17.000 37.32 259.73 257.88 247.23 17.500 37.48 259.98 258.27 247.26 18.000 37.60 260.18 258.60 247.27 18.500 37.66 260.27 258.84 247.30 19.000 37.65 260.26 258.97 247.31 19.500 37.59 260.16 259.01 247.33 20.000 37.50 260.02 258.99 247.35 85

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Containment Pressure Response Containment Pressure 60 50 40 -

C,)

En 304 204 10 -

U I-2 I Io II I i A

-3 -: 1 2 10 3 4 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time (s)

Double-Ended Pump Suction Break with Minimum Safeguards Figure I Double-Ended Pump Suction Break with Minimum Safeguards - Pressure 86

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Containment Temperature Response Containment Steam Temperature

-- -- Containment Sump Water Temperature 300 250 Ll

.0

~200 2o LUJ L..-

150 100 Time (s)

Double-Ended Pump Suction Break with Minimum Safeguards Figure 2 Double-Ended Pump Suction Break with Minimum Safeguards - Steam and Sump Water Temperature 87

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Containment Pressure Response Containment Pressure 60 50 t 40 -

30O-0)

En 20o-10 -

0 , 11 i 1 i i 1  ! 1 i1 i l 1 i 1 II

-3 I I I i i I1 -2 -I 0 1 2 3 4 5 101 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time (s)

Double-Ended Pump Suction Break with Maximum Safeguards Figure 3 Double-Ended Pump Suction Break with Maximum Safeguards - Pressure 88

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Containment Temperature Response Containment Steam Temperature

- -- - Containment Sump Water Temperature 300 250

• /tt

~I t t2000 t~.J 150 -

100 ' ' 1 fil"I 1' " 1,1f 1 1 M11I 1 111, t 1"1111,1" 1111 Time (s)

Double-Ended Pump Suction Break with Maximum Safeguards Figure 4 Double-Ended Pump Suction Break with Maximum Safeguards - Steam and Sump Water Temperature 89

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Containment Pressure Response Containment Pressure 60 50 40 20 10 0 I I '1 Time (s)

Double-Ended Hot Leg Break with Minimum Safeguards Figure 5 Double-Ended Hot Leg Break with Minimum Safeguards - Pressure 90

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Containment Temperature Response Containment Steam Temperature

- --- Containment Sump Water Temperature 300 250 I

• /

S200 clI 150 ,

100 -

-5 -4 -3 -2 - 10 I 2 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time (s)

Double-Ended Hot leg Break with Minimum Safeguards Figure 6 Double-Ended Hot Leg Break with Minimum Safeguards - Steam and Sump Water Temperature 91

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 References

1. H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.2, Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 14.3.6.

2. "Westinghouse LOCA Mass and Energy Release Model for Containment Design March 1979 Version," WCAP-10325-P-A, May 1983 (Proprietary), WCAP-10326-A (Non-Proprietary).

3. Mr. Herbert N. Berkow (NRC) to Mr. J. A. Gresham (W), "ACCEPTANCE OF CLARIFICATIONS OF TOPICAL REPORT WCAP-10325-P-A,

'WESTINGHOUSE LOCA MASS AND ENERGY RELEASE MODEL FOR CONTAINMENT DESIGN - MARCH 1979 VERSION' (TAC NO. MC7980),"

October 18, 2005.

4. CP&L Letter Serial Number RNP-RA/99-0025, R. L. Warden (CP&L) to USNRC Document Control Desk, "H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO.2 DOCKET NO. 50-261/LICENSE NO. DPR 23, REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE ULTIMATE HEAT SINK (UHSV' May 27, 1999.

5. PGN-06-22, D. C. Beddingfield (W) to Mr. Ken Jones (CP&L), "Progress Energy, H. B. Robinson Plant, Analysis Issues with the Current LOCA Mass and Energy Releases and the Resulting Containment Pressure Impacts for H. B. Robinson,"

March 20, 2006.

6. ANSI/ANS-5. 1-1979, "American National Standard for Decay Heat Power in Light Water Reactors," August 29, 1979.

7. NRC Information Notice 96-39: Estimates of Decay Heat Using ANS 5.1 Decay Heat Standard May Vary Significantly, July 5,1996.

8. Docket No.50-315, "Amendment No.126 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-58 (TAC No.71062)," for D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1, June 9,1989.

9. EPRI 294-2, Mixing of Emergency Core Cooling Water with Steam: 1/3 Scale Test and Summary, (WCAP-8423), Final Report June 1975.

10. "Topical Report Westinghouse Mass and Energy Release Data for Containment Design," WCAP-8264-P-A, Rev. 1, August 1975 (Proprietary), WCAP-8312A (Non-Proprietary).

11. "Containment Pressure Analysis Code (COCO)," WCAP-8327, July, 1974 (Proprietary), WCAP-8326, July, 1974 (Non-Proprietary).

92

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3

12. Takashi Tagami, "Interim Report on Safety Assessments and Facilities Establishment Project in Japan for Period Ending June 1965," No.1.

13. E. W. Ranz and W. R. Marshall, Jr., "Evaporation for Drops," Chemical Engineering Progress, 48, pp.1 4 1-1 46, March 1952.

14. Parsly, L. F., "Design Consideration of Reactor Containment Spray Systems Part VI, The Heating of Spray Drops in Air-Steam Atmospheres," ORNL-TM-2412 Part VI, January 1970.

15. Letter from Mr. Don Phillips (Progress Energy) to Mr. Dwain W. Alexander (Westinghouse), "Containment Analysis Update to Address Changes in Spray Flow and ECCS Flow Due to Revised NPSH Calculation and Transmittal of Calculation RNP-M/MECH-1651 Rev.11," March 15, 2004.

16. CP&L Letter Serial:0163L98.CHF, K. E. Karcher (CP&L) to D. W. Alexander (WJ, "Transmittal of Phase 1A Fuel Related Containment Parameters," 1998.

17. PGN-02-14, Dwain W. Alexander M to Mr. David Martrano (CP&L),

"CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, H. B. ROBINSON SITE, Containment Analysis Update Report," March 14, 2002.

18. PGN-04-23, Dwain W. Alexander (_) to Mr. Donald Phillips (Progress Energy),

"PROGRESS ENERGY, H. B. ROBINSON PLANT, Containment Analysis Update to Address Changes in Spray Flow and ECCS Flow Due to Revised NPSH Calculations," March 25, 2004.

19. Westinghouse Letter No. LTR-NRC-05-46, Mr. James Gresham (W) to NRC Document Control Desk, "Clarification of WCAP-10325-P-A," August 4, 2005.

20. CPL-99-019, Mr. Dwain Alexander (W) to Mr. K. Karcher (CP&L), "CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, H. B. Robinson Unit 2, Containment Reanalysis Project Phase 2 Analysis Completion - Table and Figures From LOCA and Main Steamline Break," May 18, 1999.

21. Letter Mr. Charles E Rossi (NRC) to W. J. Johnson (W), "Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report WCAP-10325, Westinghouse LOCA Mass and Energy Release Model for Containment Design (Proprietary) - March 1979 Version," February 17, 1987.

93