ML20195B389

0 to CENPD-279, Annual Rept on Abb CE ECCS Performance Evaluation Models

ML20195B389
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	04/30/1999
From:	ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY, ASEA BROWN BOVERI, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20195B381	List: ML20195B375 ML20195B389
References
CENPD-279, CENPD-279-S10, NUDOCS 9905280246
Download: ML20195B389 (15)

Text

.,

l CENPD 279 i Supplement 10 I

ANNUAL REPORT 0N ABB CE ECCS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MODELS 1

i April 1999 C Copyright 1999, Combustion Engineering,Inc. All Rights reserved Engineering Services ADD ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power DO 00 7 pg-gg p ASEA BROWN BOVERI P

n ..

l..

• LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared as an account ofwork done by ABB Combustion Engineering. Neither Combustion Engineering, Inc. nor any person acting on its behalf:

A. makes any warranty or representation, express or implied including the warranties of fitness for a particular purpose or merchantability, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this repon, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or B.

assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report.

I i

l l

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

i

.. ABSTRACT

~ This report describes changes and errors in the ABB Combustion Engineering evaluation models

- for PWR ECCS performance analysis in calendar year 1998 per the requirements of 10CFR50.46.

For this reporting period, there were no changes or errors in the evaluation models or application -

i of the models.

The sum of the absolute magnitude of the PCT changes for large break LOCA from all reports to date continues to be less than 1 F excluding plant specific effects. The total effect relative to the

- 50 F definition of a significant change in PCT would be the sum of<1 F and plant specific effects, if any, described in Appendices A-E. The sum of the absolute magnitude of the maximum l cladding temperature changes for small break LOCA from all reports to date is less than 3 F. .No change occurred in the PCT for post-LOCA long term cooling..

l 1

k

, TABLE OF CONTENTS EME Ib g l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 1

2.0 ABB CE CODES USED FOR ECCS EVALUATION 3 3.0 EVALUATION MODEL CIIANGES AND ERROR CORRECTIONS 4 1

4.0 CONCLUSION

S 5 1

5.0 REFERENCES

6 APPENDICES (Plant Soecific Considerations)

A.

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (PVNGS Units 1-3)

B.

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Calvert Cliffs Units 1 & 2) l C.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SONGS Units 2 & 3)

D.

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Unit 2)

E. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED

1. Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2

2. Waterford Unit 3 l

e ii

r ..

s' e

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report addresses the NRC requirement to report changes or errors in ECCS performance evaluation models. The ECCS Acceptance Criteria, Reference 1, spells out reporting

- requirements and actions required when errors are corrected or changes are made in an evaluation model or in the application of a model for an operating licensee or construction permittee of a nuclear power plant.

. .The action requirements in 10CFR50.46(a)(3) are:

1. - Each applicant for or holder of an operating license or construction permit shall estimate the effect of any change to or error in an acceptable evaluation model or -

in the application of such a model to determine if the change or error is significant.

For this purpose, a significant change or error is one which results in a calculated peak fuel cladding temperature (PCT) different by more than 50 F from the temperature calculated for the limiting transient using the last acceptable model, or is a cumulation of changes and errors such that the sum of the absolute magnitudes of the respective temperature changes is greater than 50*F.

-2. For each change to or error discovered in an acceptable evaluation model or in the application of such a model that affects the temperature calculation, the applicant 3 or licensee shall report the nature of the change or error and its estimated effect on j the limiting ECCS analysis to the Commission at Idast annually as specified in I 10CFR50.4.

3. If the change or error is significant, the applicant or licensee shall provide this report within 30 days and include with the report a proposed schedule for providing a reanalysis or taking other action as may be needed to show compliance with 10CFR50.46 requirements. This schedule may be developed using an j integrated scheduling system previously approved for the facility by the NRC. For those facilities not using an NRC approved integrated scheduling system, a schedule will be established by the NRC staffwithin 60 days of receipt of the  ;

proposed schedule.  !

4. Any change or enor correction that results in a calculated ECCS performance that

~ does not conform to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of 10CFR50.46 is a reponable event as described in 10CFR50.55(e),50.72 and 50.73., The affected applicant or licensee shall propose immediate steps to demonstrate compliance or i bring plant design or operation into compliance with 10CFR50.46 requirements.

l l

1

l f

, i' This report documents all the errors corrected in and/or changes to the presently licensed ABB CE ECCS performance evaluation models, made in the year covered by this report, which have not been reviewed by the NRC staff. This document is provided to satisfy the reporting requirements of the second item above. ABB CE repons for earlier years are given in References 4 2-11, l

l 2

i 2.0 ABB CE CODES USED FOR ECCS EVALUATION ABB CE uses several digital computer codes for ECCS performance analysis that are described in topical reports, are licensed by the NRC, and are covered by the provisions of 10CFR50.46.

Those for large break LOCA (LBLOCA) calculations are CEFLASH-4A, COMPERC-II,

- HCROSS, PARCH, STRIKIN-II, and COMZIRC. CEFLASH-4AS is used in conjunction with COMPERC-II, STRIKIN-II, and PARCH for small break LOCA (SBLOCA) calculations. The codes for post-LOCA long term cooling analysis are BORON, CEPAC, NATFLOW, and CELDA.

4 j

i l

3

p: ...

3.0 EVALUATION MODEL CHANGES AND ERROR CORRECTIONS This section discusses all error corrections and model changes to the ABB CE ECCS performance evaluation models for PWRs which may affect the calculated PCT.

There were no changes to or errors in the ECCS evaluation models for PWRs or changes to their application for calendar year 1998.

4

L.*

• ~

,l,. .

l l -

4.0 CONCLUSION

S l

L There were no changes or errors in the ABB CE ECCS evaluation models for PWRs or their

{

application for LBLOCA, SBLOCA, or post-LOCA long term cooling. The sum of the absolute i magnitude of the changes in PCT calculated using the ABB CE ECCS evaluation models for LBLOCA, including those from previous annual reports, References 2-11, remains less than 1 F relative to the 50 F criterion for a significant change in PCT. The total LBLOCA PCT impact for a given plant is <l*F plus the plant specific effects, if any, discussed in Appendices A through E.

i The sum of the absolute magnitude of the changes in maximum cladding temperature for SBLOCA (due to the change in application of the SBLOCA evaluation model described in Reference 11)is less than 3*F. Plant specific SBLOCA considerations for each plant, if any, are l discussed in Appendices A-E.

l The cumulative sum of the absolute magnitude of the change in cladding temperature from the post-LOCA long term cooling model is zero.

L l

l l

5

5.0 REFERENCES

' l .~

" Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors," Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, Section 50.46,

2. " Annual Report on C-E ECCS Codes and Methods for 10CFR50.46," CENPD-279, April, 1989.

3. " Annual Report on C-E ECCS Codes and Methods for 10CFR50.46," CENPD-279, Supplement 1, Februanf,1990.

4. " Annual Report on C-E ECCS Codes and Methods for 10CFR50.46," CENPD-279, Supplement 2, April,1991.

5. " Annual Report on C-E ECCS Codes and Methods for 10CFR50.46," CENPD-279, Supplement 3, April,1992.

6. " Annual Report on C-E ECCS Codes and Methods for 10CFR50.46," CENPD-279, Supplement 4, April,1993.

7. " Annual Report on C-E ECCS Codes and Methods for 10CFR50.46," CENPD-279, Supplement 5, February,1994.

8 " Annual Report on ABB C-E ECCS Performance Evaluation Models," CENPD-279,

~ Supplement 6, February,1995.-

9. " Annual Report on ABB C-E ECCS Performance Evaluation Models," CENPD-279, Supplement 7, February,1996.

10. " Annual Report on ABB CE ECCS Performance Evaluation Models," CENPD-279, Supplement 8, March,1997, 1

" I

11. - Annual Report on ABB CE ECCS Performance Evaluation Models," CENPD-279,- i Supplement 9, February,1998.

j j

6

[ .

APPENDIX A ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Plant Specific Considerations for Palo Verde Units 1,2 and 3 This information does not apply to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company-and, therefore is not part of this submittal.

l l

l l

A.1

T :-

. APPENDIX B BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Plant Specific Considerations for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 Final resolution of the energy redistribution factor (ERF) error was provided by Calvert Cliffs' specific calculations incorporating the corrected ERF as described in Supplement 9 of this report. Supplement 9 was submitted May 15,1998. Supplement 10 of this report, being submitted now, reflects completion and verification of the Calvert cliffs specific analysis confirming resolution of the ERF error. There were no changes to or errors in the ECCS evaluation models for PWRs or changes to their applications for the calendar year 1998.

B.1 l;

p ..

1. ,.

g:-

l APPENDIX C SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Plant Specific Considerations for SONGS Units 2 and 3 This information does not apply to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company l

and, therefore is not part of this submittal.

l-1 i-1 l

l l

l C.1

APPENDIX D FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Plant Specific Considerations for St. Lucie Unit 2 This information does not apply to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and, therefore is not part of this submittal. t l

i i

D.1

y f':'

lc' .I i

l .

APPENDIX E l

ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED Plant Specific Considerations for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 This information does_ not apply to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and, therefore is not part of this submittal. j i

l I

i Plant Specific Considerations for Waterford Unit 3 l

l

( l This information does not apply to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company j and, therefore is not part of this submittal. j I

I E.1