ML090230570

Gnf S-0000-0092-8136, Revision 0, GE14 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility with Columbia Legacy Fuel, October 2008 (Non-Proprietary Version)

ML090230570
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	10/31/2008
From:	Global Nuclear Fuel
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GO2-09-001 GNF S-0000-0092-8136, Rev 0
Download: ML090230570 (16)

Text

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST INVOLVING CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT AND SCRAM TIME TESTING Enclosure 3 NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION OF GNF S-0000-0092-8136, REVISION 0, OCTOBER 2008 GNF S-0000-0092-8136, Revision 0, "GEl 4 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility With Columbia Legacy Fuel," October 2008 (non-proprietary version)

GNF Global Nuclear Fuel A Joint Venture of GE, Toshiba, & Hitachi P. 0, Box 780, Wilmington, NC 28402-0780, USA GNF Non- Proprietary Information Class I October 2008 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GE14 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility With Columbia Legacy Fuel Verification Status: Verified GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Disclaimer The only undertakings of Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) respecting information in this document are contained in the Contract for Fuel Bundle Fabrication and Related Services for Columbia between Energy Northwest and Global Nuclear Fuel -Americas LLC and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the contract:

The use of this information by anyone other than Energy Northwest, or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, is not authorized; and with respect to any unauthorized use, GNF makes no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that is use may not infringe privately owned rights.Proprietary Information Notice This document is the GNF non-proprietary version of the GNF proprietary report. From the GNF proprietary version, the information denoted as GNF proprietary (enclosed in double brackets) was deleted to generate this version.Verified Information Page 2 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table of Contents 1.0 2.0 2.1.2.2.2.3.3.0 4.0 5.0 INTRO DUCTION .........................................................................................................................................

5 CALCULATION PROCESS ........................................................................................................................

5 M ETHODS AND CORRELATIONS

...................................................................................................................

5 ASSUMPTIONS

.............................................................................................................................................

5 P R O C ESS ......................................................................................................................................................

6 CRITERIA .....................................................................................................................................................

6 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................

6 REFERENCES

..............................................................................................................................................

8 Verified Information Page 3 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I List of Figures FIGURE 1. AXIAL POWER SHAPE PROFILES ...........................................................................................

10 List of Tables TABLE 1. CORE PERFORMANCE (100%P/106%F, INLET PEAKED) ....................................................................

10 TABLE 2. CORE PERFORMANCE (I00%P/88%F, INLET PEAKED) ...................................................................

10 TABLE 3. CORE PERFORMANCE (57.4%P/32.3%F, INLET PEAKED) ..................................................................

10 TABLE 4. HOT BUNDLE PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON ATRIUMTM-_

10 vs. GE14 (100%P/106%F, INLET PEAKED) ..............................................................................................................................................................

11 TABLE 5. HOT BUNDLE PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON ATRIUMTM -10 vs. GE14 (100%P/88%F, INLET PEAKED) ........................................................................................

! .....................................................................

11 TABLE 6. HOT BUNDLE PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON ATRIUMTM-_

10 vs. GE14 ..........................................

12 TABLE 7. HOT BUNDLE MCPR (INLET PEAKED) .................................................................................................

12 TABLE 8. GE14 HOT BUNDLE WATER ROD FLOW (KLB/HR) .............................................................................

12 TABLE 9. GE14 W ATER ROD EXIT QUALITY ...........................................................................................................

13 TABLE 10. BYPASS EXIT QUALITY AND TOP LPRM VOID FRACTION FOR HOT BUNDLE AND CORE AVERAGE ... 14 TABLE 11. CORE PERFORMANCE (100% P & 106% F) (OUTLET PEAKED AXIAL POWER SHAPE) ..................

15 TABLE 12. BYPASS EXIT QUALITY AND TOP LPRM VOID FRACTION FOR HOT BUNDLE AND CORE AVERAGE (OUTLET PEAKED AXIAL POW ER SHAPE) ...........................................................................................................

15 Verified Information Page 4 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0* GNF Non- Proprietary Information Class I 1.0 Introduction The thermal hydraulic compatibility report provides a summary of the thermal hydraulic evaluations performed to demonstrate acceptable thermal hydraulic compatibility of the GE14 fuel assembly with the Energy Northwest legacy fuel assemblies.

The specific acceptance criterion associated with the thermal hydraulic compatibility of GEl4 fuel with legacy fuel is that the new fuel is not to significantly degrade the performance of the legacy fuel in the core from a thermal hydraulic perspective.

Specifically, during a transition to GNF GE14 fuel the legacy fuel should not experience unacceptable changes to MCPR, plenum-to-plenum pressure drop, or bundle flow. In addition, the introduction of GEl4 fuel should not cause significant voiding in the bypass region or water rods. These characteristics will be addressed in the thermal hydraulic compatibility report.Analyses cover the transition from a core loaded completely with Atrium -10 fuel to one loaded completely with GE14 fuel. Steady state calculations are performed over a range of operating core flows and core thermal powers. The results of these evaluations support the conclusion that GE14 fuel and the legacy fuel can be safely and acceptably operated together at Columbia.2.0 Calculation Process 2.1. Methods and Correlations The ISCOR engineering computer program was used for all analyses documented in this report.ISCOR performs a steady state thermal hydraulic analysis of a nuclear reactor core. ISCOR is the code that implements the NRC approved methodology for performing steady state thermal hydraulic evaluations as described in Reference

1. Inputs required for the code include reactor core power level and distribution, inlet flow conditions, reactor core operation pressure, and a hydraulic description of the reactor fuel bundles. The code calculates the core flow distribution and core pressure drop for a given inlet core flow. The code considers the pressure drop and flow in the reactor core only. Modeling of the bypass region, leakage flow paths, and water rod hydraulics is included.

Pressure drop correlations are utilized to calculate contributions due to friction, local losses, elevation, and acceleration.

Thermal performance calculations for GEl4 fuel are carried out using the GEXL14 critical quality -boiling length correlation (References 2 and 4). Thermal performance calculations for Atrium -10 fuel are carried out using the GEXL97 correlation (Reference

3) to determine relative thermal performance in the Columbia core.2.2. Assumptions

]] characteristics were assumed for all predictions of thermal hydraulic performance.

This is consistent with the GNF design and licensing evaluation procedures.

[[ ]] fuel geometry with [[ ]] was used for both Atrium -10 and GEI4 fuel types. Flow to the bypass region via the GE14 channel to lower tie plate finger spring Verified Information Page 5 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non- Proprietary Information Class I leakage path used [[ ]] conditions.

Both assumptions tend to reduce leakage flow to the bypass. The minimum bypass flow condition provides a conservative determination of maximum expected bypass voiding while not significantly affecting the relative sharing of flow between fuel bundle types or the relative comparison of other performance parameters.

2.3. Process

Analyses were performed for three power/flow state points along the boundary of the Columbia operating domain (Reference

5) at the two power shapes in Figure 1. The power/flow state points are: rated power at maximum flow, rated power at minimum flow, and minimum pump speed at maximum power (57.4%P/32.3%F).

3.0 Criteria

The thermal hydraulic design process is closely coupled with other evaluations performed to demonstrate compliance with safety and performance criteria, including core nuclear design and the thermal hydraulic critical power correlations for Atrium -10 fuel. The results from the design analyses documented in this report provide confirmation of the thermal hydraulic performance characteristics applied in these other evaluations.

The specific acceptance criterion associated with the thermal hydraulic compatibility of GEJ4 fuel with legacy fuel is: The new fuel is not to significantly degrade the performance of the legacy fuel in the core from a thermal hydraulic perspective.

Specifically, during a transition to GE14 fuel the legacy fuel should not experience unacceptable changes to MCPR, plenum-to-plenum pressure drop, or bundle flow. In addition, results will be provided to demonstrate that the introduction of GEI4 fuel will not cause significant voiding in the bypass region or water rods, thereby maintaining compatibility with core monitoring instrumentation.

4.0 Results

Core performance predictions for the three core power/flow analysis conditions with the inlet peaked power shape are provided in Tables I through 3. The hot channel pressure drop comparisons between Atrium -10 and GE14 designs are shown in Tables 4 through 6. Table 7 provides predictions for both the Atrium TM -10 and GE14 for the hot bundle MCPR. Table 8 shows the GE14 Hot Bundle Water Rod Flow for the three power/flow analysis conditions.

The water rod exit quality is also analyzed 'for the GE14 fuel. The potential for water rod voiding increases as the core flow decreases leading to reduced water rod flow and inlet subcooling.

In general, for the minimum pump speed condition minimal voiding is expected for the GE14 water rod. Table 9 provides the exit quality for the GEN4 water rod for the various core loadings and power/flow analysis conditions (minus the all Atrium -10 core).The potential for voiding in the bypass region was evaluated for several core compositions, including all Atrium -10 fuel core. The power/flow analysis conditions include rated power/Verified Information Page 6 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non- Proprietary Information Class I increased core flow and rated power/reduced core flow (100%P/106%F and 100%P/88%F).

Table 10 shows the bypass void fraction at the top LPRM and the limiting bundle bypass exit quality for the bypass region of the hot bundle and the core average. In order to minimize the uncertainty in monitoring four bundle cell axial power using the thermal Traversing In-core Probe (TIP) system in conjunction with Local Power Range Monitors (LPRMs), it is necessary to prevent peak local bypass voiding at the top LPRM axial position from exceeding a [[ ]]void figure of merit. Table 10 demonstrates that none of the top LPRM Void Fractions exceed I[[ ]].The sensitivity to the power shape was studied by analyzing an outlet peaked power shape at the rated power/increased core flow analysis conditions (100%P/106%F).

Tables 1-10 are the results from an inlet peaked power shape. Tables 11 and 12 are from the outlet peaked power shape. Table 11 provides the core performance values for comparison to Table 1, which contains the core performance values for the inlet peaked power shape. The top LPRM Void Fraction and Exit Quality of the bypass region for the outlet peaked power shape are given in Table 12, and can be compared to Table 10. It is seen that the top LPRM Void fractions are [[ ]] or less for all bundles and fuel type combinations.

Verified Information Page 7 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non- Proprietary Information Class I 5.0 References

1. General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR 11), NEDE-2401 l-A-16, October 2007.2. GEXLI 4 Correlation for GE14 Fuel, NEDC-3285 1-A, Rev. 5, January 2008.TM 3. GEXL97 Correlation Applicable To Atrium -10 Fuel, NEDC-33419, Rev. 0, June 2008.4. GE14 Compliance With Amendment 22 of NEDE-24011-A (GESTAR II), NEDC-32868, Rev. 2, September 2007.5. Columbia Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 59, December 2007.Verified Information Page 8 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non- Proprietary Information Class I Figure 1. Axial Power Shape Profiles 11 Verified Information Page 9 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non- Proprietary Information Class I Table 1. Core Performance (100%P/106%F, Inlet Peaked)Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)Bypass Pressure Flow AtriumTM -10 GE14 Drop (psi) (% of Total) AtriumTM -10 GE14 764 0 573 191 382 382 191 573 0 764 Table 2. Core Performance (100%P/88%F, Inlet Peaked)Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)Bypass Pressure Flow AtriumTM -10 GE14 Drop (psi) (% of Total) AtriumTM -10 GE14 764 0 573 191 382 382 191 573 0 764 Table 3. Core Performance (57.4%P/32.3%F, Inlet Peaked)Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)Bypass Pressure Flow AtriumTM -10 GE14 Drop (psi) (% of Total) AtriumTM -10 GE14 764 0 573 191 382 382 191 573 0 764 Verified Information Page 10 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non- Proprietary Information Class I Table 4. Hot Bundle Pressure Drop Comparison Atrium -10 vs. GE14 (100%P/106%F, Inlet Peaked)Heterogeneous Core Homogeneous Core 10 P50% AtriumTM -10&106% Flow 50% GE14 AtriumTM-10 GE14 AtriumTM 10 GE14 Total Bundle Flow (kLb/hr)Pressure Drop (psi)total friction total elevation total acceleration local losses Total]Table 5. Hot Bundle Pressure Drop Comparison Atrium -10 vs.GE14 (100%P/88%F, Inlet Peaked)Heterogeneous Core Homogeneous Core 50% AtriumTM -10&88% Flow 50% GE14 AtriumTM 10 GE14 AtriumTM 10 GE14 Total Bundle Flow (kLb/hr)Pressure Drop (psi)total friction total elevation total acceleration local losses Total ]]Verified Information Page 11 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non- Proprietary Information Class I Table 6. Hot Bundle Pressure Drop Comparison Atrium -10 vs. GE14 (57.4%P/32.3%F, Inlet Peaked Heterogeneous Core Homogeneous Core 54 P50% AtriumTM -10&32.3% Flow 50% GE14 AtriumTM 10 GE14 AtriumTM 10 GE14 Total Bundle Flow (kLb/hr)Pressure Drop (psi)total friction total elevation total acceleration local losses Total ]Table 7. Hot Bundle MCPR (Inlet Peaked)Core Composition 100% Power 100% Power 57.4% Power 106% Flow 88% Flow 32.3% Flow AtriumTM -10 GE14 AtriumTM -10 GE14 AtriumTM -10 GE14 AtriumTM-10 GE14 764 0 573 191 382 382 191 573 0 764 Table 8.GE14 Hot Bundle Water Rod Flow (kLb/hr)(In let Peaked)Core Composition 100% Power 100% Power 57.4% Power 106% Flow 88% Flow 32.3% Flow AtriumTM-10 GE14 GE14 GE14 GE14 764 0 N/A N/A N/A 573 191 382 382 191 573 0 764 Verified Information Page 12 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 9. GE14 Water Rod Exit Quality (Inlet Peaked)Core Composition GE14 Hot Bundle GE14 Avg Bundle Core Power Core Flow Core Inlet Enthalpy Water Rod Exit Water Rod Exit AtriumTM-10 GE14 (%) (%) (BTU/Lb) Quality Quality 764 0 N/A 100 106 573 191 100 88 57.4 32.3 100 106 382 382 100 88 57.4 32.3 100 106 191 573 100 88 57.4 32.3 100 106 0 764 100 88 57.4 32.3 ]]Verified Information Page 13 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 10. Bypass Exit Quality and Top LPRM Void Core Average (Inlet Peaked)Fraction for Hot Bundle and Core Composition 100% Power & 106% Flow 100% Power & 88% Flow Hot Bundle Core Average Hot Bundle Core Average Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Exit Void Exit Void Exit Void Exit Void AtriumTM-10 GE14 Quality Fraction Quality Fraction Quality Fraction Quality Fraction 764 -0 573 191 382 382 191 573 0 764 __Verified Information Page 14 of 15 GNF S-0000-0092-8136 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 11. Core Performance (100% P & 106% F)Outlet Peaked Axial Power Shape)Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)Pressure Drop Bypass Flow AtriumTM-10 GE14 (psi) (% of Total) AtriumTM-10 GE14 764 0 573 191 382 382 191 573 0 764 Table 12. Bypass Exit Quality and Top LPRM Void Fraction for Hot Bundle and Core Average (Outlet Peaked Axial Power Shape)Core Composition 100% Power & 106% Flow 100% Power & 88% Flow Hot Bundle Core Average Hot Bundle Core Average Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Exit Void Exit Void Exit Void Exit Void AtriumTM -10 GE14 Quality Fraction Quality Fraction QUality Fraction Quality Fraction 764 0 573 191 382 382 191 573 0 764 ]]Verified Information Page 15 of 15