W3F1-2005-0019, Supplement to Amendment Request NPF-38-249, Extended Power Uprate

Supplement to Amendment Request NPF-38-249, Extended Power Uprate

ML050810095
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	03/17/2005
From:	Harris A Entergy Nuclear South, Entergy Operations
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
W3F1-2005-0019
Download: ML050810095 (47)

Text

, id Entergy Nuclear South Entergy Operations, Inc.

17265 River Road A-E Killona, LA 70057-3093 Entergy Tel 504-739-6475 Fax 504-739-698 aharris@entergy.com W3F1 -2005-0019 Alan J. Harris Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance Waterford 3 March 17, 2005 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Supplement to Amendment Request NPF-38-249 Extended Power Uprate Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38

REFERENCES:

1. Entergy Letter dated November 13, 2003, 'License Amendment Request NPF-38-249 Extended Power Uprate'

2. Entergy Letter dated July 28, 2004, "Supplement to Amendment Request NPF-38-249 Extended Power Uprate"

3. Entergy Letter dated July 14, 2004, "Supplement to Amendment Request NPF-38-249 Extended Power Uprate"

Dear Sir or Madam:

By letter (Reference 1), Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) proposed a change to the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), Operating License and Technical Specifications to increase the unit's rated thermal power level from 3441 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3716 MWt. On March 9, 2005, Entergy and members of your staff held a call to discuss a correction to an input to the Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LBLOCA) analysis used in support of the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) license amendment request submitted in Reference 1.

As discussed during the call, the problem was discovered in the EPU LBLOCA Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) performance analysis performed to determine the Peak Cladding Temperature (PCT). Specifically, the code input caused the analysis to be run with no containment cooling from the Containment Fan Coolers (CFCs) which is non-conservative for the ECCS performance analysis. This was identified while investigating sensitivities on a future Waterford 3 core reload (one cycle beyond the first EPU cycle) when Westinghouse was referring back to the EPU analysis. This condition has been entered into both the Westinghouse and Entergy 10CFR50 Appendix B corrective action programs.

The LBLOCA analysis of record for current plant operation was verified not to be impacted by this condition.

With containment cooling from the CFCs corrected, the EPU LBLOCA ECCS performance analysis calculated a PCT in excess of 2200F. A PCT of 2164-F was reported for the limiting EPU LBLOCA ECCS performance analysis in Section 2.12.3 of Attachment 5 to Reference 1.

-A01

W3Fl -2005-0019 Page 2 of 4 One key assumption used in the EPU LBLOCA ECCS performance analysis was a Peak Linear Heat Generation Rate (PLHGR) of 13.2 kW/ft. Due to cycle specific fuel performance restrictions, Cycle 14 (i.e., first EPU cycle) is limited to a value of 12.9 kW/ft. With the input corrected and the PLHGR reduced to 12.9 kW/ft the resulting PCT is 2153F. A PLHGR limit of 12.9 kWlft supports Cycle 14 operation and will be implemented and controlled by the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).

Therefore, the EPU LBLOCA ECCS performance analysis has been reperformed with the input corrected and utilizing the Cycle 14 specific PLHGR of 12.9 kW/ft. Other inputs independent of PLHGR are not changed from those listed in Section 2.12.3 of Attachment 5 to Reference 1. The limiting break size of 0.8 DEG/PD (Double Ended Guillotine/Pump Discharge) is not changed.

The revised results for the extended power uprate demonstrate conformance to the ECCS acceptance criteria as summarized below.

Parameter Criterion Revised Result PCT s22000 F 2153-F Maximum Cladding Oxidation s 17% 8.5%

Maximum Core-Wide Oxidation s 1% <0.99%

Coolable Geometry Yes Yes The results are applicable to Waterford 3 for a PLHGR of 12.9 kW/ft as specified in the COLR and a rated core power of 3716 MWt (3735 MWt including a 0.5% power measurement uncertainty). These revised EPU LBLOCA ECCS performance analysis results supersede those previously submitted in support of the EPU license amendment request (e.g.,

Reference 1 and 2). A revised Section 2.12.3 with hand marked changes and revised figures is attached and supersedes Section 2.12.3 previously submitted in Attachment 5 to Reference 1.

No other analyses (e.g., Small Break LOCA, Long Term Cooling (including boric acid precipitation), Alternative Source Term, fuel system design, etc.) were impacted by this problem or the revised analysis and results.

The no significant hazards consideration included in Reference 3 is not affected by any information contained in the supplemental letter. There are no new commitments contained in this letter.

It continues to be Entergy's plan to implement the Waterford 3 EPU during the Spring 2005 outage. Entergy recognizes that the input correction to the LBLOCA analysis challenges NRC approval by March 31, 2005, the approval date previously requested by Entergy. NRC approval of the amendment by April 15, 2005 will support implementation plans during the outage. Your prompt review and approval of the EPU amendment request is important to the Waterford 3 outage plans and preparation.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact D. Bryan Miller at 504-739-6692.

W3Fl -2005-0019 Page 3 of 4 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 17, 2005.

Sincerely,

Attachment:

Revised Section 2.12.3, Large-Break LOCA (LBLOCA) Analysis

W3FI-2005-0019 Page 4 of 4 cc: Dr. Bruce S. Mallett U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Waterford 3 P.O. Box 822 Killona, LA 70066-0751 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Mr. Nageswaran Kalyanam MS O-7D1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway Attn: J. Smith P.O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39205 Winston & Strawn Attn: N.S. Reynolds 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3502 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Compliance Surveillance Division P. 0. Box 4312 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4312 American Nuclear Insurers Attn: Library Town Center Suite 300S 29h S. Main Street West Hartford, CT 06107-2445

Attachment To W3FI -2005-0019 Revised Power Uprate Report Section 2.12.3, Large-Break LOCA (LBLOCA) Analysis

Waterford 3 Extended Power Uprate properties sufficient to provide assurance that the most severe postulated LOCAs are calculated. The evaluation model may either be a realistic evaluation model as described In 10CFR50.46(a)(1)(i) or must conform to the required and acceptable features of Appendix K ECCS Evaluation Models (Reference 2.12-2). The evaluation models used to perform the Waterford 3 EPU ECCS performance analysis are Appendix K evaluation models.

2.12.3 Large-Break LOCA (LBLOCA) Analysis 2.12.3.1 Methodology The LBLOCA ECCS performance analysis used the 1999 Evaluation Model (EM) version of the Westinghouse LBLOCA evaluation model for Combustion Engineering (CE) PWRs. The current Waterford 3 LBLOCA ECCS performance analysis, described in Sections 6.3.3.2 and 15.6.3.3.3.1 of the Waterford 3 FSAR (Reference 2.12-3), employs the June 1985 version of the Westinghouse LBLOCA EM for CE PWRs (Reference 2.124), which is the version of the evaluation model upon which the 1999 EM Is built.

Several computer codes are used In the 1999 EM. The computer codes are described in the references cited with additional descriptive Information provided In the 1999 EM topical report (Reference 2.12-5). The CEFLASH-4A computer code (Reference 2.12-6) is used to perform the blowdown hydraulic analysis of the reactor coolant system (RCS) and the COMPERC-Il computer code (Reference 2.12-7) is used to perform the RCS refill/reflood hydraulic analysis and to calculate the containment minimum pressure. It Is also used in conjunction with the methodology described in Reference 2.12-8 to calculate the FLECHT-based reflood heat transfer coefficients used in the hot rod heatup analysis. The HCROSS (Reference 2.12-9) and PARCH (Reference 2.12-10) computer codes are used to calculate steam cooling heat transfer coefficients. The hot rod heatup analysis, which calculates the PCT and maximum cladding oxidation, Is performed with the STRIKIN-I1 computer code (Reference 2.12-11). Core-wide cladding oxidation is calculated using the COMZIRC computer code (Appendix C of Supplement 1 of Reference 2.12-7). The Initial steady state fuel rod conditions used in the analysis are determined using the FATES3B computer code (Reference 2.12-12).

The 1999 EM isdescribed In the topical report (Reference 2.12-5) and It has been approved for LBLOCA analyses for the CE-designed PWRs as documented in the Safety Evaluation Report for the model (Reference 2.12-28). The 1999 EM as described Inthe topical report was used in the Waterford 3 extended power uprate LBLOCA ECCS performance analysis.

The 1999 EM Is built on the June 1985 version of the Westinghouse LBLOCA evaluation model for the CE-designed PWRs. The Safety Evaluation Reports for the 1985 EM and computer codes are documented in References 2.12-13 through 2.12-19. The Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) for the FATES3B computer code are documented in References 2.12-20 through 2.12-22.

In performing the LOCA calculations, conservative assumptions are made concerning the availability of safety injection (SI) flow. It Is assumed that offslte power Is lost and all pumps must await diesel startup before they can begin to deliver flow. (It is assumed, however, that offsite power Is available for the Containment Spray System (CSS) and containment fan coolers). Also, Itis assumed that all safety injection flow delivered to the broken cold leg Is lost.

2.12-2 6306.doc-1 e3o6.docwl 1/05/03 1/05/03 2.12-2

Waterford 3 Extended Power Uprate The limiting Initial fuel rod conditions used In the LBLOCA analysis (i.e., the conditions that result In the highest calculated peak cladding temperature) were determined by performing burnup dependent calculations with STRIKIN-I1 using initial fuel rod conditions calculated by FATES3B. The calculations Included the analysis of both U02 and erbia burnable absorber fuel rods.

A study was performed to determine the most limiting single failure of ECCS equipment under EPU conditions. The study analyzed no failure, failure of an emergency diesel generator, failure of a high-pressure safety injection (HPSI) pump, and a failure of a low-pressure safety Injection (LPSI) pump consistent with approved topical reports. Maximum safety injection pump flow rates were used In the no failure case; minimum safety Injection pump flow rates were used In the emergency diesel generator (EDG), HPSI and LPSI pump failure cases. The pumps were actuated on a safety injection actuation signal (SIAS) generated by low pressurizer pressure with a startup delay of greater than or equal to 27.0 seconds for HPSI and greater than or equal to 42.5 seconds for LPSI. Minimum refueling water storage pool temperature was used in all four cases as a result of a sensitivity study of the refueling water storage pool water temperature. The most limiting single failure (i.e., the failure that resulted in the highest calculated PCT) was no failure of ECCS equipment. This Is the same limiting single failure described in the SAR for the current analysis. No failure Isthe worst condition because it maximizes the amount of safety Injection that spills into the containment. This acts to minimize containment pressure which, in turn, minimizes the rate at which the core Is reflooded. The failure of either an EDG or a HPSI or iPSI pump Is not the most damaging failure because, in all cases, there Is sufficient safety Injection pump flow to keep the acceptable reflood rate. This maintains about the same reflood rate as for no failure, but results In less spillage Into the containment. The study also Investigated the Impact of variation In safety Injection tank (SIT) pressure, water temperature, and water volume on PCT. Minimum SIT pressure, minimum water temperature and maximum water volume were determined to result In the highest peak cladding temperature. The assumed maximum SIT water volume Is 1686 ft3, which Is a 200 ft3 reduction from the current Technical Specification. A Technical Specification change for maximum SIT water volume Is Included as part of this licensing amendment request.

A spectrum of guillotine breaks in the reactor coolant pump (RCP) discharge leg was analyzed.

As described In Section 3.4 of Reference 2.12-5, the discharge leg is the most limiting break location and a guillotine break Is more limiting than a slot break. In particular, the 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 double-ended guillotine breaks in the reactor coolant pump discharge leg (DEG/PD) were analyzed. The 0.8 DEG/PD break was determined to be the limiting LBLOCA (i.e., the break that results In the highest calculated PCT). The same break was the limiting case In previous cycles also.

2.12.3.2 Plant Design Data Important core, Reactor Coolant System (RCS), ECCS, and containment design data used in the LBLOCA analysis are listed In Tables 2.12-1 and 2.12-2. The listed fuel rod conditions are for rod average bumup of the hot rod that produced the highest calculated PCT. Plant design data for the containment (e.g., data for the containment Initial conditions, containment volume, containment heat removal systems, and containment passive heat sinks) were selected to minimize the transient containment pressure. The core Inlet temperature was the minimum RCS cold leg temperature at full power Including uncertainty.

2.12-3 6306.dac-1 1/05103 6306.doc-1 1/05/03 2.12-3

Waterford 3 Extended Power Uprate 2.12.3.3 Results Table 2.12-3 lists the peak cladding temperature and oxidation percentages for the spectrum of LBLOCAs. Times of interest are listed in Table 2.12-4. The variables listed InTable 2.12-5 are plotted as functions of time in Figures 2.12-1 through 2.12-8 for the 1.0 DEG/PD break. The variables listed In Tables 2.12-5 and 2.12-6 are plotted as functions of time for the 0.8 DEG/PD break, the limiting LBLOCA, in Figures 2.12-9 through 2.12-27. The variables listed In Table 2.12-5 are plotted for the 0.6 DEG/PD In Figures 2.12-28 through 2.12-35. The results for the extended power uprate demonstrate conformance to the ECCS acceptance criteria as summarized below. The results from the FSAR are provided for comparison. '

• 153 EPU / Current Parameter Criterion 9u11U/ FSAR PCT <22000 F 21770F Maximum Cladding Oxidation <17% (.7 0 8.6%

Maximum Core-Wide Oxidation *1% <0.99% <0.81%

Coolable Geometry Yes Yes Yes

.Cheresults are applicable to Waterford 3 for a peak linear heat generation rate (PLHGR) of

12. -13.)W/ft as specified in the Core Operating Umits Report (COLR) and a rated core power of 3716 MWt (3735 MWt Including a 0.5% power measurement uncertainty).

2.12-4 6306.doc-1 1105/03 6wo6.dc-.1/05/03 2.12-4

Waterford 3 Extended Power Uprate Table 2.12-1 LBLOCA ECCS Performance Analysis Core and Plant Design Data Quantity I Value I Units Reactor power level (100.5% of rated power) 3735 MWt PLHGR of the hot rod* ( 12.9 kW/I PLHGR of the average rod In assembly with hot rod ( 3 12.1 kW/ft Gap conductance at the PLHGR (3F IbisO~ BTU/hr-ft 2 -PF Fuel centerline temperature at the PLHGR - 331Z. OF Fuel average temperature at the PLHGR 210D3 OF Hot rod gas pressure 1108 psia Moderator temperature coefficient at 583OF, 2250 psla +0.Oxl O0 Ap/0 F RCS flow rate 148.0x10 6 Ibm/hr Core flow rate 144.15x10 6 Ibm/hr RCS pressure 2250 psia Cold leg temperature 533.0 OF Hot leg temperature 598.7 OF Plugged tubes per steam generator 1000 Low pressurizer pressure SIAS setpoint 1560 psia SIT pressure (min/max) 584.7/714.7 psia SIT water volume (min/max) 926/1686 ft3 LPSI pump flow rate (min, 1 pump/max, 2 pump) 4084/11300 gpm HPSI pump flow rate (min, I pump/max, 2 pump) 762/1970 gpm Containment pressure 14.025 psia Containment temperature 90 OF Containment humidity 100 Containment net free volume 2.684x1 06 ft3 Containment spray pump flow rate 2250 gpm/pump Refueling water storage pool temperature (min/max) 50/100 OF Containment passive heat sinks Table 2.12-2

• As specified In Core Operating Umits Report (COLR).

• • These quantities correspond to the rod average burnup of the hot rod (1000 MWD/MTU) that yields the highest PCT.

2.12-5 6306.dac-1 1/05/03 63om.toc-l 1/05/03 2.12-5

Waterford 3 Extended Power Uprate Table 2.12-2 LBLOCA ECCS Performance Analysis Containment Passive Heat Sink Data Wall Thickness°') Surface Area No. Description Material (ft) (ft2) 1 Containment Primary Carbon Steel 0.118879 92819.00 Cylinder and Dome 2 Concrete Underwater (one Concrete 11.A63 15427.75 side faces ground) 3 Concrete Underwater (all Concrete 2.049 8553.69 remaining) 4 Concrete in Air - less than Concrete 1.1025 47663.92 6 feet thick 5 Concrete In Air - greater Concrete 3.365 9913.15 than or equal to 6 feet thick 6 Stainless Steel Stainless Steel 0.003734 59114.40 7 Galvanized Steel (Zinc Zinc 0.000122 192827.75 Coating on Carbon Steel) Carbon Steel 0.005628 8 Structural and Miscellaneous Carbon Steel 0.008134 184549.18 Exposed Steel - less than 0.2-inch thick 9 Structural and Miscellaneous Carbon Steel 0.03154 215234.76 Exposed Steel - greater than or equal to 0.2-Inch thick but less than 0.5-inch thick 10 Structural and Miscellaneous Carbon Steel 0.065582 71308.76 Exposed Steel - greater than 0.5-inch thick (1) Thickness is effective thickness as a result of combining similar thickness walls.

2.12-6 6X06.dxC-1 1/05/03 6306.doc.1 1/05/03 2.12-6

Waterford 3 Extended Power Uprate Table 2.12-3 LBLOCA ECCS Performance Analysis Results Maximum Cladding Maximum Core-PCT Oxidation Wide Cladding Break Size (0 F) (%) Oxidation (%)

1.0 DEG/PD 2 <0.99 0.8 DEG/PD l5'3 ( -2 <0.99 0.6 DEG/PD ( 9 Zl0 83 <0.99 Table 2.12-4 LBLOCA ECCS Performance Analysis Times of Interest (Seconds after Break)

End of Start of SiTs SI Pumps Hot Rod Break Size SiTs On Bypass Reflood Empty on Rupture 1.0 DEG/PD 10 21.7 43 114. 49.7 0.8 DEG/PD 11.7 I 23.2 44 &Z 115.9 49.7 44.4 0.6 DEG/PD 13.8 25.6 118.2 49.8 45.8 U-S 46 L 45.97.

1137.1 630.doc-1 1/05/03 2.12-7

Waterford 3 Extended Power Uprate Table 2.12-5 LBLOCA ECCS Performance Analysis Each Break Variables Plotted as a Function of Time Variable Core Power Pressure In Center Hot Assembly Node.

Leak Flow Rate Hot Assembly Flow Rate (below and above hot spot)

Hot Assembly Quality Containment Pressure Mass Added to Core During Reflood Peak Cladding Temperature Table 2.12-6 LBLOCA ECCS Performance Analysis Limiting Break Variables Plotted as a Function of Time Variable Mid Annulus Flow Rate Quality Above and Below the Core Core Pressure Drop Safety Injection Flow Rate into Intact Discharge Legs Water Level in Downcomer During Reflood Hot Spot Gap Conductance Maximum Local Cladding Oxidation Percentage Fuel Centerline, Fuel Average, Cladding, and Coolant Temperature at the Hot Spot Hot Spot Heat Transfer Coefficient Hot Pin Pressure Core Bulk Channel Flow Rate 2.12-8 m6x0ioc-1 B308.dac-1 1/05/03 1/05/03 2.12-8

1.2 p

• p

• 1.1, .4,4 4

• 4,4,4.4

• 4 4,4,4

• 4 * *

• 4.

• 1.0 W

lY 0.8 0

0~

I-z 0 0.6 0~

0 0.4 aL 0.2 0.0 0 I 2 3 4 5 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-1 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 1.0 DEG/PD Break Core Power Word Version 4.2

- 2400 2000 _

1600 Ld 1200 0 U,

w 800 400 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-2 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 1.0 DEGIPD Break Pressure in Center Hot Assembly Node Word Version 4.2

120000 . a, ., . , , , , , , . -

100000 PUMP Si E

-________ VESSEL IDE 80000 0

WF60000 b co 0 0 20000 ~ '

0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-3 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 1.0 DEGIPD Break Leak Flow Rate Word Version 4.2

30 20 BELOW OTSPOT

- - - - --- ABOVE OTSPOT 10

,I'I'fs

-J 0

I-ad 0

-I IL-

-10

-20

-30 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-4 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 1.0 DEGIPD Break Hot Assembly Flow Rate (Below and Above Hot Spot)

Word Version 4.2

1.2 1.0 0.8 z0

.' '6 0

0.6 a I .

0.4 v

-u~__ ATHOTTEST______

NjDE 14______

0.2

.,,,, ,, _ _ . ~NODE 13 ABEOWE HOTT ST REGION 0.0 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-5 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 1.0 DEGIPD Break Hot Assembly Quality Word Version 4.2

60 ., , ,.. ,, ,,, ,, , ,. , .... , . , ... ..

50 40

, 030 CO, w

20 10 0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME AFTER BREAK, SECONDS Figure 2.12-6 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 1.0 DEG/PD Break Containment Pressure Word Version 4.2

150000 125000 Time Reflood Rate (S) (inks) 0 - 11.5 1.451 m 100000 11.5-60.5 1.155 Li 60.5 - 500. 0.680 0

C-)

0 75000 w

U)

E 50000 25000 0 , - -___l I'll...,

0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME AFTER CONTACT, SECONDS Figure 2.12-7 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 1.0 DEGIPD Break Mass Added to Core During Reflood Word Version 4.2

2400 2200 2100 IL U- 1800 0

LL CC:

0~

D 1500

,I ~t f _________ - 9 9 ~~~ ___,_____

w 0

1200 900 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-8 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 1.0 DEG/PD Break Peak Cladding Temperature Word Version 4.2

1.2 . .. .. , ,

1.0 W 0.8 0~

ILL 0.6 0 O 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-9 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Core Power Word Version 4.2

2400 ..a . . . ....... ... p...... ... .... .... , .

2000 1600 Li

,1200 800 400 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-10 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEG/PD Break Pressure in Center Hot Assembly Node Word Version 4.2

120000 100000 PUMP SI E

__-----VESSEL IDE 80000 0

CU) rn

-J i_ 60000 0

-J 40000 I II 20000 *< I 0

0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-11 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEG/PD Break Leak Flow Rate Word Version 4.2

30 20 BELOW OTSPOT ABOVE OT SPOT ------

10 0

con m

-j 0

0

-j U-

-10

-20

-30 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12.12 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEG/PD Break Hot Assembly Flow Rate (Above and Below Hot Spot)

Word Version 4.2

1.2 1.0 0.8 BA z

0.6 TIME SEOD 04

---

ND 1 THOTS 0.2 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.1 2-13 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Hot Assembly Quality Word Version 4.2

60 50 40 EL V5 La 30 U1)

U) w a.

20 10

__________________ .9,,,, 99* 99?9*9* 9,,,,,, '99 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME AFTER BREAK, SECONDS Figure 2.12-14 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Containment Pressure Word Version 4.2

150000 125000 Time Reflood Rate (s) (in/s) 0 -11.1 1.527 m 100000 11.1 - 57.5 1.81I

-J ui 57.5 - 500. 0.678 0

C-)

0

'- 75000 0

w 0

0 CO)

A:

<50000 25000 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME AFTER CONTACT, SECONDS Figure 2.1 2-15 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEG/PD Break Mass Added to Core During Reflood Word Version 4.2

2400 900.

0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-16 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Peak Cladding Temperature Word Version 4.2

5000 0

-5000 U,

m

-j F -1 0000

-J IL

-15000

-20000

-25000 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-17 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Mid Annulus Flow Rate Word Version 4.2

1.2 0US 0

>,1,,,,,, .- -- ---- riODE 49 BELO8\ THE CORE 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-18 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Quality Above and Below the Core Word Version 4.2

3 0 .. . . . . . . , ...... . . .. . . . . .

20 10~

0)

Li U,

w 0 a.

-10

-20

-30 9 9 9

• 9 t 9 9 !9 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-19 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEG/PD Break Core Pressure Drop Word Version 4.2

12000 10000 0

2 8000

-J 0

-J LL o 6000 z

4000 LLL 0 40 80 120 160 200 TIME AFTER BREAK, SEC Figure 2.12-20 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEG/PD Break Safety Injection Flow Rate into Intact Discharge Legs Word Version 4.2

18 *. . .. . . . . .

15 12 I.-

-3 w

w

-j 9 w

6 3

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME AFTER CONTACT, SECONDS Figure 2.12-21 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Water Level in Downcomer During Reflood Word Version 4.2

1800 1500 CD w 1; 1200 0

900 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-22 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEG/PD Break Hot Spot Gap Conductance Word Version 4.2

18 ,, i, ., .,ii , ,i . ,i i,,.,, . i, i, i, i,i 15 12 0

8 .. . .. . .... . . . . ......... .. . . . . . . . .

0 6

3 0 ....... ~ _ __ __

0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.1 2-23 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Maximum Local Cladding Oxidation Percentage Word Version 4.2

3000 2500 I N LL2000 ,. .~-

w S U. 1 l '

-o --

l FELC TRLN S. _~CA I /COOLANr Lrl',¢---_-_-_----- FUEL AVERAGE 1500 0 0I I 0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-24 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEG/PD Break Fuel Centerline, Fuel Average, Cladding, and Coolant Temperature at the Hot Spot Word Version 4.2

180 -

• 3,4 * * * .3,I*I. 3. .4,3. .3. .3.33311 150 LL 120 CD w

0 90 ED I-Ir 60 30 I

0 99?

[99999!?,, 19.9.1.99,19999999.,

0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-25 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Hot Spot Heat Transfer Coefficient Word Version 4.2

1200 8000 800 Li

, 600 w

EL 400 200 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 20 40 60 80 100 TIME AFTER BREAK, SEC Figure 2.12-26 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEGIPD Break Hot Pin Pressure Word Version 4.2

30000 I *6, .6. , 6

• 6 *

• 6.I~ll I'. .. 1 ,..,lii ,'..

20000 CORE INLET

- --- - CORE E IT 10000 0

U,

-J 0

0

-J LL

-10000

-20000 BULK CHA NEL REPRES NTS 98%

OF THE TTAL CORE FLOW AREA

-30000 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-27 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.8 DEG/PD Break Core Bulk Channel Flow Rate Word Version 4.2

1.2 ,...,, ,,, .....

1.0 0.8 0

0.6 LL O 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-28 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.6 DEGIPD Break Core Power Word Version 4.2

2400 2000 1600 Cl)

Li D 1200 CO w

EL 800 400 0

0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-29 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.6 DEG/PD Break Pressure in Center Hot Assembly Node Word Version 4.2

120000 100000 PUMP SIDE VESSEL IDE -----

80000 C-)

w

-j 60000 0

-j LL 40000 A______ L-'

20000 0

0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-30 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.6 DEG/PD Break Leak Flow Rate Word Version 4.2

30 20,:,BIW060 BELOW HOT SPOT

---

_-- - ABOVE HOT SPOT 10 wJI

-j 0

0 U-U-A

-10

-20

-30 . , ., , . ._ . .

0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-31 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.6 DEGIPD Break Hot Assembly Flow Rate (Above and Below Hot Spot)

Word Version 4.2

1.2 1.0 I I IU 0.8 __ _ -N 1A E STG 0 6 1 0.6 0. B HotAssembly Qai

0. NOD 13 BEOI OT lRG

___ __ -- NOE14AHTES__GO 0.4 1 TIME, SEOD 0.2 NODE 13 BELOW HOTTIEST) REGION

---

NODE 14 AT HOTTEST FEGION

-. NODE 15 ABOVE HOTT 9 S REGION 0 6 12 18 24 30 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.1 2-32 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.6 DEGIPlD Break Hot Assembly Quality Word Version 4.2

60 , ,....... ...... ,, . ..... i, i . .. .

50 40 Co Li 30 CD, w

20 10 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME AFTER BREAK, SECONDS Figure 2.12-33 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.6 DEG/PD Break Containment Pressure Word Version 4.2

150000 .I~,,... .

• I, I. ,,,,,.. ,...p.,. *A 125000 Time Reflood Rate (S) (in/s) 0- 10.5 1.678 m 1 00000 1555.8 1.187

-J ui 56.8 - 500. 0.674 0

0 0

'-- 75000 0

w 0

0 CD

<50000 25000 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME AFTER CONTACT, SECONDS Figure 2.12-34 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.6 DEGIPD Break Mass Added to Core During Reflood Word Version 4.2

2400 2200-------i.,. ---- , ,;,,,, -. ;,;,

2100 LL 1800 w

0 Ld w 1500 H

0 U1 1200 900 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 TIME, SECONDS Figure 2.12-35 Large Break LOCA ECCS Performance Analysis 0.6 DEGIPD Break Peak Cladding Temperature Word Version 4.2