ML17266A011: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 10/05/1978
| issue date = 10/05/1978
| title = LER 78-038/01T-0 on 780925,input Error Made to ECCS Analysis Re Containment Spray Flow.Caused by Ambiguous Data Supplied by Ae.Amend to Cycle 2 ECCS Analysis Will Be Issued Shortly
| title = LER 78-038/01T-0 on 780925,input Error Made to ECCS Analysis Re Containment Spray Flow.Caused by Ambiguous Data Supplied by Ae.Amend to Cycle 2 ECCS Analysis Will Be Issued Shortly
| author name = SCHOPPMAN M A
| author name = Schoppman M
| author affiliation = FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
| author affiliation = FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:~<<~I~~sHRCCORM<<$8')773LICEi4SEE EVONTREPORTU.5HUC).tARRSQUM~ORVCQMMI55iCH CQHTRCl.3I.QCK,'fo'IF''!LIS)1.ClvsliC.,30)VSSvviL~$1Ci'isi~siL0s<<SlII~I~Il)It).jR58SRIHTQA.VStROCRKQUIRf0lsSSORVIRTIQHI 51':0!Oi-',0IOIOI0!Ol-I0Ol(.I4'1Il'llll.s,I!H'VII5tl''''C~'CI-''''C505'IOOC4)iVVM$$45)iVS~5)LT5;~'5sts<<4)LISCtvtISTQ(5CAIsvlQH
{{#Wiki_filter:~ << ~ I~
'HQ~RQ818L5QH58CU8lCK!(>QfDurinreviewoftheECCSparameters fortheCycle3reloadsafety~0.)analvsisitwasdeterminded that'anerrorhadbeenmadeintheinputL-'otheSt.LucieECCSanalsisconcerning thecontainment sprayflowrate.))TheNSSSvendorerformedareanalysis forCycle2usingthecorrected spraypumpflow.Thereanalysis onthisitemconfirmsthatSt.Lucie1'oesnotexceedtheAppendixKlimit.5<<sftVLestLilslOLI~ski,<<iOicl50$COlCLI40vtvf00$'CLLSLJO~CaQ~.1III)IJ'.5'$550Vtisflkl.
~ s HRC CORM <<$ 8                                                                                                                                             U. 5  HUC).tAR RSQUM ORV CQMMI55iCH
OCVRSSVCS1$401TSlvislOis SvtIvt414$404TVO9's~!~7I8~~038~~~01~T)8)I)$)0tiStLTLC4LSTVTVSSOVSSSVtviVPislisf~LOII4$s)sls~sLI~~0IIO1VS~Ass<<iVLVV~41'-"Sl-''0I-'ISLJS''"'::~C4)<<RU55Q85Sl~lQHkHQCQRRsc~lvtRC~IQss5+o'hecauseoftheincorrectlv assumedCSPflowratewasduetoambiuousdatasuppliedbytheAE.WehavereviewedtheECCSparameters fortheCcle2reloadsafetyanalysistoensurethatallinputtotheanalsisiscorrect.Anamendment totheCycle2ECCSanalysiswillbel~LcswsOTVSRSTLms 9NA5LI'SII)<<ssl1'C~lLCIvlfvC<<Ovf)'vT
                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~
~l'~5l0OsSlv)LSC~~~l~!i=)~)'7~$~SOvvl.STLOSISls~sit$4Zsl)SSC~I~Ossi!%iaI0~Ui0I()il4,I~8I)LSLLLOIJssf OsLCTlvifvO)$I~~~LLisubmitted inthenearfuture.vt<<00OsOISCOVSSV LSO'SccvS4Vl504~'vIQiSPEC1ALINVEST1GATION I.OCLTO'I~SlSLSI3NAloI~$15cvvl,vsvSIIS~,.vll~.5SC1)~Cv~L'i~s~II~QLCNAUR'dlao295~~)55<<t0~Slsc~~O'IQi~NsfL1I)018RN~A.Schoppman
          ')  773 LICEi4SEE EVONT REPORT CQHTRCl. 3I.QCK,           '         I I      I    ~
~I~l30'52-3802 ICSJIIRCAtP.l.~II~I''lI REPORTABLE OCCURRENCE 335-78-38 LICENSEEEVENTREPORTPAGETWOADDITIONAL EYENTDESCRIPTION DuringreviewoftheECCSparameters fortheCycle3reloadsafetyanalysis, itwasdetermined thatanerrorhadbeenmadeintheinputtotheSt.LucieECCSanalysisconcerning thecontainment sprayflowrate.TheflowrateusedwasthevalueforIpump,nottherequired2-pumpflowrate.Toevaluatetheimpactofthiserror,ananalysiswasperformed forCycle2bytheNSSSvendorusinp,thecorrected spraypumpflow.Lhereas,thepriorECCSanalyseshasusedrefloodheattransfercoefficients derivedfromCOHPRERC-II baseduponspraypumpflowof3375gpmandaPeakLinearHeatGeneration Rate(PLHGR)ofl7.0kw/ft,thenewanalysisusedrefloodheattransfercoefficients basedonaspraypumpflowof6750gpmandthecurrentPLHGRTechnical Specification limitof14.8kw/ft.IneachcasethePeakCladTemperature (PCT)wasdetermined usingSTRIKIN-II withaPLHGRofl4.8kw/ftandtherespective refloodheattransfercoeffici-ents.Theincreaseinrefloodheattransfercoefficients resulting fromthE.reduction inPLHGRfroml7.0to14.8kw/ftmorethanoffsetanydecreaseinheattransfercoefficients duetothedoublingofspraypumpflow.AsaresultthePCTcalculated bySTRIKIN-II decreased fromthevalueof2035Fdetermined forCycle2toarevisedvalueof2022F.00Thiscompletes therenalysis onthisitemandconfirmsthatSt.LucjedoesnotexceedtheAppendixKlimit.}}
l      I ~   )               It). jR58    SRIHT QA        . V St ROC    RKQUIRf0 lsSSORVIRTIQHI fo          '              F''!L                  IS            1':C., 0!Oi-',0 5
I  OI OI      0!Ol I            0 Ol(.I          4'1Il 'll~sill .s,                           !
                                                                                                                          'C~'CI ''
I                                                                                                                                                                        I
                        )        1          .Clvsli                                                            0) VSS vviL~ $ 1                        3                    Ci'isi            L0          s    <<Sl I
            'V H 5
I 50 tl    5  'I tvtIST Q(5CAIsvlQH 'HQ ~ RQ818L5 QH58CU8 lCK! (>Qf OOC4) i VVM$$ 4
: 5)       i VS  ~ 5 )LT5             ;~       '5      sts<<4
                                                                                                                                                                                                      )L I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  'C SC Durin              review of the                        ECCS          parameters                for the Cycle                        3  reload safety
        ~0     .)                 analvsis it was determinded that 'an                                                            error had been                        made in the input L-         'o          the St. Lucie ECCS anal sis concerning the containment spray flow rate.)
                                )   The NSSS vendor erformed a reanalysis for Cycle 2 using the corrected spray pump flow. The reanalysis on this item confirms that St. Lucie 1
                                'oes              not exceed the Appendix                                          K    limit.
                                                        ~
5<<sftV Oi
                                                                    'C LLS
                                                                    .1 Lest II cl Lilsl 50$ C Ol LJO I)
                                                                                                                        ~C IJ C  LI40vtvf 00$
                                                                                                                                                          '.5 aQ OLI ~          ski,<< i 550Vtisflkl.                             OC VRSSVCS                1$ 401T                            SlvislOis 9 's~               !
Svt I vt41
                                                          ~7I8 ti St
                                                                                ~                   ~03 4$ 404T VO 8
                                                                                                                      )8
                                                                                                                                  ~~
                                                                                                                                  )I
                                                                                                                                                    ~01
                                                                                                                                                              )$
                                                                                                                                                                            ~T
                                                                                                                                                                            )0 SSSVt      vi                        islisf LT LC4LSTVT              VSSOV                                            VP 1'
                                    "Sl        ''0            I     'IS            LJS                        '
                                                                                                                      ~ LOII4$   s)     sls ~ sLI~ ~ 0 IIO1 V S ~
                                                                                                                                                                  ~C Ass<<i                    VLVV~ 4 4)
                                  <<RU55 Q85 Sl ~ lQH kHQ CQRRsc                            lvt RC      IQss5 +o
                                'he
                                                                                        ~            ~
cause        of the incorrectlv assumed CSP flow rate was due to ambi uous data supplied by the AE. We have reviewed the ECCS parameters for the C cle 2 reload safety analysis to ensure that all input to the anal sis is correct. An amendment to the Cycle 2 ECCS analysis will be
        ~      ~
L
                      ~
l LC
                          ~
                            ~
5 i
Lcsw submitted in the near future.
LI 'S l Ivlfv l' ~ 5l0
                                )
s Os II)<<ssl1 C<<Ovf)'vT Slv)LSC
                                          ~~~ l~!i=)
                                                  '7
                                                                      'C~   I)
OTVSRSTLms LLLOIJssf Os NA LCTlvifvO)$
9 LS I
vt LS
                                                                                                                              <<00 OISCOVSSV Os SPEC1AL INVEST1GATION NA O'Sccv S4 V I.OCLT O'I      ~
l 504 Sl SLSI
                                                                                                                                                                                              ~    'v 3
IQi lo
                                    ~$   ~ SOvvl. STLOSI  Sls
                                      ~   sit $ 4            Zsl          )SSC ~ I ~   Oss  i!%i a I  0    ~
U i0    I( )il 4, I~8 I
~     s
                                    ~$
                              ~II~QLC 15cvvl, vsvSIIS
                                    ~,.vll ~               .5 SC1 )~Cv~L' NA                UR'dl ao295
        ~             ~       )                                                                                                                                                                                               SJ 55<<t0~         Slsc ~ ~ O'I Q                                                                                                                                      IIRC    At P.l.    ~
i          ~NsfL1                                                                                                                                                    I I    ~     I '      '    l  I I      )               0                                                                                                                                  ~ I  ~ l                                  IC 1  8RN          ~  A.Schoppman                                                                           30'52-3802
 
REPORTABLE OCCURRENCE   335-78-38 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT PAGE TWO ADDITIONAL EYENT DESCRIPTION During review of the ECCS parameters for the Cycle 3 reload safety analysis,   it was determined that an error had been made in the input to the St. Lucie ECCS analysis concerning the containment spray flow rate. The flow rate used was the value for I pump, not the required 2-pump flow rate. To evaluate the impact of this error, an analysis was performed for Cycle 2 by the NSSS vendor usinp, the corrected spray pump flow. Lhereas, the prior ECCS analyses has used reflood heat transfer coefficients derived from COHPRERC-II based upon spray pump flow of 3375 gpm and a Peak Linear Heat Generation Rate (PLHGR) of l7.0 kw/ft, the new analysis used reflood heat transfer coefficients based on a spray pump flow of 6750 gpm and the current PLHGR Technical Specification limit of 14.8    kw/ft. In each case the Peak Clad Temperature (PCT) was determined using STRIKIN-II with a PLHGR of l4.8 kw/ft and the respective reflood heat transfer coeffici-ents. The increase in reflood heat transfer coefficients resulting from thE. reduction in PLHGR from l7.0 to 14.8 kw/ft more than offset any decrease in heat transfer coefficients due to the doubling of spray pump flow. As a result the PCT calculated by STRIKIN-II decreased from the value of 2035 0 F determined for Cycle 2 to a revised value of 2022 0 F.
This completes the renalysis on this item and confirms that St. Lucje does not exceed the Appendix K limit.}}

Latest revision as of 10:08, 4 February 2020

LER 78-038/01T-0 on 780925,input Error Made to ECCS Analysis Re Containment Spray Flow.Caused by Ambiguous Data Supplied by Ae.Amend to Cycle 2 ECCS Analysis Will Be Issued Shortly
ML17266A011
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/05/1978
From: Schoppman M
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17266A010 List:
References
LER-78-038-01T, LER-78-38-1T, NUDOCS 7810170245
Download: ML17266A011 (2)


Text

~ << ~ I~

~ s HRC CORM <<$ 8 U. 5 HUC).tAR RSQUM ORV CQMMI55iCH

~

') 773 LICEi4SEE EVONT REPORT CQHTRCl. 3I.QCK, ' I I I ~

l I ~ ) It). jR58 SRIHT QA . V St ROC RKQUIRf0 lsSSORVIRTIQHI fo ' F!L IS 1':C., 0!Oi-',0 5

I OI OI 0!Ol I 0 Ol(.I 4'1Il 'll~sill .s,  !

'C~'CI

I I

) 1 .Clvsli 0) VSS vviL~ $ 1 3 Ci'isi L0 s <<Sl I

'V H 5

I 50 tl 5 'I tvtIST Q(5CAIsvlQH 'HQ ~ RQ818L5 QH58CU8 lCK! (>Qf OOC4) i VVM$$ 4

5) i VS ~ 5 )LT5  ;~ '5 sts<<4

)L I

'C SC Durin review of the ECCS parameters for the Cycle 3 reload safety

~0 .) analvsis it was determinded that 'an error had been made in the input L- 'o the St. Lucie ECCS anal sis concerning the containment spray flow rate.)

) The NSSS vendor erformed a reanalysis for Cycle 2 using the corrected spray pump flow. The reanalysis on this item confirms that St. Lucie 1

'oes not exceed the Appendix K limit.

~

5<<sftV Oi

'C LLS

.1 Lest II cl Lilsl 50$ C Ol LJO I)

~C IJ C LI40vtvf 00$

'.5 aQ OLI ~ ski,<< i 550Vtisflkl. OC VRSSVCS 1$ 401T SlvislOis 9 's~  !

Svt I vt41

~7I8 ti St

~ ~03 4$ 404T VO 8

)8

~~

)I

~01

)$

~T

)0 SSSVt vi islisf LT LC4LSTVT VSSOV VP 1'

"Sl 0 I 'IS LJS '

~ LOII4$ s) sls ~ sLI~ ~ 0 IIO1 V S ~

~C Ass<<i VLVV~ 4 4)

<<RU55 Q85 Sl ~ lQH kHQ CQRRsc lvt RC IQss5 +o

'he

~ ~

cause of the incorrectlv assumed CSP flow rate was due to ambi uous data supplied by the AE. We have reviewed the ECCS parameters for the C cle 2 reload safety analysis to ensure that all input to the anal sis is correct. An amendment to the Cycle 2 ECCS analysis will be

~ ~

L

~

l LC

~

~

5 i

Lcsw submitted in the near future.

LI 'S l Ivlfv l' ~ 5l0

)

s Os II)<<ssl1 C<<Ovf)'vT Slv)LSC

~~~ l~!i=)

'7

'C~ I)

OTVSRSTLms LLLOIJssf Os NA LCTlvifvO)$

9 LS I

vt LS

<<00 OISCOVSSV Os SPEC1AL INVEST1GATION NA O'Sccv S4 V I.OCLT O'I ~

l 504 Sl SLSI

~ 'v 3

IQi lo

~$ ~ SOvvl. STLOSI Sls

~ sit $ 4 Zsl )SSC ~ I ~ Oss i!%i a I 0 ~

U i0 I( )il 4, I~8 I

i ~ s

~$

~II~QLC 15cvvl, vsvSIIS

~,.vll ~ .5 SC1 )~Cv~L' NA UR'dl ao295

~ ~ ) SJ 55<<t0~ Slsc ~ ~ O'I Q IIRC At P.l. ~

i ~NsfL1 I I ~ I ' ' l I I ) 0 ~ I ~ l IC 1 8RN ~ A.Schoppman 30'52-3802

REPORTABLE OCCURRENCE 335-78-38 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT PAGE TWO ADDITIONAL EYENT DESCRIPTION During review of the ECCS parameters for the Cycle 3 reload safety analysis, it was determined that an error had been made in the input to the St. Lucie ECCS analysis concerning the containment spray flow rate. The flow rate used was the value for I pump, not the required 2-pump flow rate. To evaluate the impact of this error, an analysis was performed for Cycle 2 by the NSSS vendor usinp, the corrected spray pump flow. Lhereas, the prior ECCS analyses has used reflood heat transfer coefficients derived from COHPRERC-II based upon spray pump flow of 3375 gpm and a Peak Linear Heat Generation Rate (PLHGR) of l7.0 kw/ft, the new analysis used reflood heat transfer coefficients based on a spray pump flow of 6750 gpm and the current PLHGR Technical Specification limit of 14.8 kw/ft. In each case the Peak Clad Temperature (PCT) was determined using STRIKIN-II with a PLHGR of l4.8 kw/ft and the respective reflood heat transfer coeffici-ents. The increase in reflood heat transfer coefficients resulting from thE. reduction in PLHGR from l7.0 to 14.8 kw/ft more than offset any decrease in heat transfer coefficients due to the doubling of spray pump flow. As a result the PCT calculated by STRIKIN-II decreased from the value of 2035 0 F determined for Cycle 2 to a revised value of 2022 0 F.

This completes the renalysis on this item and confirms that St. Lucje does not exceed the Appendix K limit.