ML20040G819

LOCA Analysis Rept for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Errata & Addenda Sheets

ML20040G819
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	11/30/1981
From:	GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20040G814	List: ML20040G813 ML20040G819
References
77NED148, NEDO-21696-ERR, NUDOCS 8202160505
Download: ML20040G819 (6)

Text

__ _

i S =e l

NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS GROUP

• GENER AL ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNI A 95125 G EN ER AL $ ELECTRIC APPLICABLE TO:

~

PUBLICATION NO 771ED148 ERRATA And ADDENDA T. I. E. NO.

SHEET TITLE LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT "O'

ANALYSIS REPORT FOR PILGRIM DATE November 1981 NUCLEAR POWER STATION NOTE: Correctallcopies of the applicable sSSUE DATE AUWS publication as specified below.

REFERENCES ON, A INSTRUCTIONS ITEM pjSEC g pH L NE) (CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS) 01 Page 4-5 Replace with new page 4-5.

02 Page A-3 Replace with new page A-3.

03 Page A-7 Replace with new page A-7.

NOTE: changes are indicated by vertical bar in the right-hand margin.

PAGE l Of l 8202160505 820208 PDR ADOCK 05000293 P PDR

NEDO-21696 Table 2

SUMMARY

OF BREAK SPECTRUM RESULTS e Break Size Core-Wide e Location Peak Local Metal-Water e Single Failure PCT ('F) Oxidation (%) Reaction (%)

e 4.34 ft 2136(1) 2.3 0.14 e Recirc Suction e LPCI Injection Valve

1. PCT from CIMSTE P

4- 5

, . o 6

NEDO-21696 Table 3 LOCA ANALYSIS FIGURE

SUMMARY

- NON-LEAD PLAirr Large Break Methods Maximum Suction Break LBA (LPCI Injection Valve Failure)

(4.34 ft2)

Water Level Inside Shroud 1 and Reactor Vessel Pressure Peak Cladding Temperature 2 Heat Transfer Coefficient 3 Core Average Inlet Flow 4 Minimum Critical Power Ratio 5 Peak Cladding Temperature of 2 the Highest Powered Plane Experiencing Boiling Transition Variation with Break Area of 6 Time for Which Hot Node Remains Uncovered 4-6

J .

NED0-21696 the depressurization rate was found to be negligible in the pre-vious section. The results of CHASTE calculations show that the l DBA remains the limiting break.

l A.4.2 Small Break Analysis Break sizes smaller than 1.0 ft2 are not limiting as snown in the comparison of the uncovered times in Table A-2. All breaks in Table A-2 have an uncovered time which is equal to or less than the 154 second uncovered time for the DBA, except for the 0.100 ft2 break. For all these breaks (except the 0.100 ft2, which is described later) the Peak Cladding Temperature (PCT) will be less than the 2200 0F calculated for the DBA, because the time of hot node uncovery decreases with decreasing break size, and the decay heat decreases with increasing break size, and the decay heat decreases with increasing time. Thus the 0 900 ft2 break will have a lower PCT than the DBA, even though both breaks have equal uncovered tbnes, because the 0 900 ft2 break has an uncovery time of 71 seconds, which is much later than the DBA uncovery time of 20.6 seconds. The decay heat at 71 seconds is less than at 20.6 seconds, so the heatup in the uncovered period for the 0.900 ft2 break is less than the heat-up for the DBA.

For the 0.100 ft2 break, which has an uncovered time only 3 seconds more than the DBA, the PCT is calculated by the small break model to be less than 17000F, A .S Conclusions Using the DBA as the limiting break, a bounding analysis was performed with the CHASTE code. The results of the calculations show that for each of the fuel types, a MAPLHGR multiplier which is independent of exposure must be applied to the MAPLHGR values given in Section 4 of this report . These MAPLHGR multipliers are given in Table A-3 The use of these multipliers conservatively determines the MAPLHGR required to keep the PCT below 2200cF for the DBA, with no credit assumed for core spray heat transfer. Break spectrum summary results applicable to the "no core spray" analysis are given in Table A-4.

A-3

s:

NEDO-21696 The calculations described in this Appendix were performed at the request of the Boston Edison Company (BECO) in order to support BECO's proposal to return to service taking no credit for core spray heat transfer. The technical justification for such calculations has been presented in this Appendix. However, General Electric considers the assumption of no core spray heat transfer credit to be excessively conservative, based on the calculations which support the continued structural integrity of the core spray spargers (presented in Reference A-1) and the many recognized conservatisms in the current LOCA models.

A.6 References A-1 Supplement 1 to Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Reload 4, NEDO-24224-1 Supplement 1, March 1980.

l l

f A-4

.4 .

NEDO-21696 Table A-3 MAPLHGR Multipliers Assuming No Core Spray Heat Transfer Credit Fuel Type Core Flow 2 90% Rated Core Flow < 90% Rated 8DB219L 0.93 0.85 8DB219H 0.93 0.85 8DB262 0.94 0.86 P8DRB265L 0.91 0.84 P8DRB282 0.92 0.85 P8DRB265H 0.90 0.82 Table A-4

SUMMARY

OF BREAK SPECTRUM RESULTS(

e Break Size Core-Wide e Location Peak Local Metal-Water e Single Failure PCT (OF) Oxidation (%) Reaction (%)

e 4.34 ft 2200 2.5 0.17 e Recirc Suction e LPCI Injection Valve (1)With no core spray heat transfer credit.

A-7

_ _ _ _ ._