ML17187A804

Containment Analysis of DBA-LOCA to Update Design Basis for Lpci/Ccs, for GENE-637-042-1193

ML17187A804
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	02/28/1994
From:	Mintz S, Torbeck J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17187A798	List: ML17187A797 ML17187A799 ML17187A800 ML17187A801 ML17187A802 ML17187A803 ML17187A804 ML17187A805
References
GENE-637-042-11, GENE-637-042-1193, GENE-637-42-11, GENE-637-42-1193, NUDOCS 9702240215
Download: ML17187A804 (45)

Text

• G_,,,~~

GE Nuclear Energy ITS OatMl'"..-_S1111J*11, C4 9SIH

~37..()41-1193 DRF T23-00717 CLASSil FEBRUARY 1994.

Dresden Nuclear Power Station i* Units 2 and 3 pint8inment Analyses of the DBA+LOCA

• to Update the Design Basis for the

• LPCT/Containment Cooling System

/

~~s.~* .*.

I *. Engineering & Licensing Consultlng Services

• 1 I

Projects I

I

~roved~ ~~rbeck 1.

.*

• Project Manager, II ** Engineering & Licensing Consulting Services Proj-i I

II

' 9702240215 970217\I

• P PDR

~--_---.-.-,--.-------:---

ADOCK 05000237

-~ .-

---

::- -.,.'. PDft I

---*~

...... l

GENE-637-042-1193

• IMPORT~ INFORMATION REGARDING CONTENTS OF nns REPORT I

The only undertakings of the General Electric Company (GE) respecting infonnation in this document are contained in the contract between Commonwealth Bdi~n Company *

• (CECo) and GE, as identified in Purchase Order Number 341715, YY68, as amended to th~ date of transmittal. of this d~ment, and nothing contained in this document shall be

.construed as changing the con~ The use ofthis infonnation.by anyone other than CECo, or for any purpose other ~an that for Which it is intended, is not authoriml; and with respect to any unauthorlz.ed use, GB makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, and assumes no liability ~.to the completeneSs, accuracy or use.fulness of the infonnation contained in this document. or that its use may not infiinge privately owned rights .

• • *~' ..

. I ii

CJE?'1E-637-042-1193

• ABSTRACT This report proVides the results forI an evaluation for the Dresden containment response

.* during a design basis loss-of-cool8nt accident (DBA-LOCA) to update the analytic31 design basis ofthe Dresden LPcUContainment Cooling System. The results of the containment pressure and temperature response analyses described in this report can be*

. . . I .

• • used to update the lorig-tenn co~ainment cooling analyses in Section 6;2 of the 1Ii'SAR and the evaluation of available NPSH for pumps taking suction from the suppression poo~

. in Section 6.3 of the UFSAR.

• *In addition, this rei>ort : I) descri~es an analysis which was used to benchmark the GE .

. .S-HEX code* to the Dresden UFSAR containment analysis for .the limiting DBA-LOCA, and 2) includes a study of the etfuct on the peak suppression pool temperature of* * .

• • - I ' . .

• changing key' containment param~ to the vallles used to update the analytical design.. .

• . . basis for the LPCI/Containment Cooling System from the values used ~the original

. UFSAR analysis~ *! . .. .

. ~I I

. I .

• ~

. I I*

• - : I I

I *

.1 I .

. I.

I

,,,.......;, . . I I

. I I

.. t.; .I i .

ll1 ..~-. _, .

' .. *. . '"\,'

CJ~-637-042-1193

• ABSTRACT

~ABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0. INTRODucnoN 2.0 **RESULTS

.3.0 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND ENGrnBERING ruDGMENTS

• 4.0 INPtrr DOCUMENTATION

.

• 5.0

• REGuLATORYREQumbmrrs **

6.0 LIMITATIONS OF APPLlCABll..ITY I

I 7.o **CALCULATIONS AND d,OMPU1¥ CODES

• s.o ' Q/ARECORDS 9.o REFERENCES

• 10.0

• APPENDICES . I I

• • iv

.T~ ,

I GENE-637-042-1~93

• • 1.0 INTRODUCDON The pwpos~ of the analyses in this report is to provide an updated analytical design basis for the LPCI/Contairunent Cooling S~ for Dresden Units 2 ~d 3; The results of these an&lyses can be used to support a licensing ~endment and can be used to update the licensing basis

• documents, including the UFS~ for the LPCI/Containment Cooling System.

GENE previously performed long-term containment analyses for Dresden which were proVi.ded to

. I ' '.

• Commonwealth Edison Company, {CECo) in GEN&170-26-1092 (Reference 1). These analyses

.used the same containment coolif!g configurations assumed for Cases 3 and 4 ~f Sedion '6.2

• the * .

. Dresden UFSAR. Cases 3 and 3, ofGENE-770-26-1092, which eoriespond to UFSAR Case 3, assumed operation with 2 LPCJ/Containment Cooling pwilps and 2 Containment Cooling Service

.. ** , I .

Water (CCSW) pumps. Cases 4 :and 4a of GENE-770-26-1092, which correspond to UFSAR

. Case 4,*assumed operation.with l'. LPcrJContaimnent Cooling puinp*apd 1 CCSW pump;

. I , .,. . ,.** . .

. . . . . I . . . . . .

CECo plans to use the resul~ for ,Case 4 of GENE-n0.26;,;I 092 to update the basis for long~ .

• ter:m containment cooling in UFS~ Section 6.2 for a configu(ltion of i LPCI/Containment .

• t Cooling pump and 1 CCSW pump;. CECo also plans to update the UFSAR basis for long-tenn

• • .* eontainment cooling for a co~gui'ation of2 LPCl/Containment cOoling pumps to:

' .pump~. However, CECO pl~. update the results of Case 3 of GENE--770-2~ 1092 with a*

and *2 (;CSW revised CCSW;tlow. rate and withla corresponding revised heat exchanger heat removal rate.

• • The analyses descnoed in this report supplement the analyses of GENE-770~26-l 092 in updating.*

• the design basis for the LP~Containment CQoling System.*

.* . . . . I . .

L 1

• SCOPE OF WORK . ' '

I ,

. 'The workScope of this report involves analysis of the containment long-term pr~ssure and

• • temperature ..

respon$e following a DBA;.LQCA I .

for Dresden: ,

Long-term. is defined here. as. .

• . begiiming at 600 seconds. into .

the event, which is when containment cooling is initiated, and I . .

• ..:.extending through the time of the peak suppression pool temperature. *~analysis.uses the GE SHEX computer code. and current'.standard assumptions for containment cooling analysis,

. . including the uSe of the ANS S. I decay heat model.

. , I

• • .Four. tasks are. documented in thisireport. Task 1 benchmarks the SHEX code to the analysis in *

• C I .

Secti()n 6.2 of the Dresden UFSAif- for.the limiting, DBA-LOCA event.. Task 2 consists of .

.* I.

J

..i  : ........ ..

. :-*. *... *.~:_'?

Ci'EJ'ilE-637-042~1193

• sensitivity studies to assess the ef;fect

. of using the ANS S. l versus the May-Witt. decay heat model and to demonstrate the effect of other key containment parameters on the design basis BD;Blysis.

. Task 3 *consists of an analysis to calculate the long-term DBA*LOCA contamment pressure and temperature response With 2 LPQJ/Containment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW pumps. 'fhe analysis of Task 3 uses revised Wlues of the CCSW pump flow rate ~d heat exchanger heat removal K-value whic}l were pro'1ded by CECo in Reference 2. The results of Task 3 can be

~ed with the results of Case 4 oti GENE-770-26-1092 ( 1.LPCVContaimnent Cooling pqmp and*

• 1 CCSW pump) to update the long-term containment cooling analysis in UFSAR Section 6.2.

I

• Task 4 consists of analysis with tlie updated basis configw;ations with inputs which minimize containment pressure. The resultS' of the analysis .of Task 4 can be used hi the evaluation of

., NPSH margins for the Core Spray and the LPCl/Containment Cooling pumps for the DBA-LOCA These results can then bC1 used t.o update the NPSH evaluation for the LPCI/Containment I

Cooling pumps and COre Spray p(lmps in UFSAR. Section 6.3 .

. 1.0 RESULTS I .

The results for each of the four tasks described in Section 1.0 are summarized in the I

following paragraphs:* .  ;*

I .

I .

. I.

. Task 1 SHEX Benchmar~ Analysis (Case I)

I I

The benchmark analysis oti ease 1 is performed to detennine the difference iii the . . *. .

calculate<J peak suppressio~ pool temperature relative to the UFSAR value of

. I . . .. . . .

l 800F due tO the use of die GE SHEX-04 code. The benclunark analysis uses key

• h  : * * - * *

• input assumptions which are consistent With the input used in the analysis for Case

'4 in UFSAR Section 6.2. 1'his includes the use of May-Witt decay heat (Reference 3), an initial suppression pool temperature of90°F, no feedwater additi~n, no .

. . I . .

• pump heat addition and a ~onfiguration of 1 Containment Cooling loop with 1 heat exchanger, I LPCI/Contaiiiment Cooling pump and 1 CCS\V pump, with a heat exchanger heat removal rate of84.5 million Btu/hr (referenced to a suppression

• pool-to-service water temP,erature difference of 85°17). The basis. for the inputs used for the benclunark arullysis is discussed in Section 3 .1 of this report.

r"' **The suppression pool temp'.erature response obtained with Case 1 to benchmark

.SHEX with the UFSAR ~ysis is shown in Figure I. The peak suppression pool i*

• 2

'. I

G-~37-042-1193 I ,

temperature obtained with: the SHEXbencbmark analysis (Case I) is 180°F,

• which is the same as the UFSAR. value of 180°F. These results confirm that the I

SHEX code predicts a peak suppression pool temperature for Dresden which is the same as the original UFSAR value for the ~e input conditions.

. I .

I Ta.Sk2

• Sensitivity $tudies (Cases 2.1 to 2.5)

The sensitivity studies in C~es 2.1 to 2.5 are performed to quantify the. effect on, the peak suppressi~n pool temperature of each key containment parameter which

• was changed from the original UFSAR value to the value used in the current .

. I .

analyses. For each of Cases 2.1to2.5, one of the parameters descn"bed above for Task 1 is changed from the: value used in the original UFSAR.analysis to the value used in~ current analysisi(Case I .

4 ofGENE-770-26-1092) to update the

/ .

LPCJ/Containmem Cooling basis for a configuration of 1 LPCJ/Containment Cooling pump and 1 CCSW. pump.

Table 1 summarizes the p~ suppression poo~ tempenlt:ures obtaitied for Case 1 of Task .1 and. Cases ~.1 to 2.? of Task :2, and *a1~ show5 the incremental effect on the UFS~ peak.suppressi.,n pool temperawre

~f changing each parameter. The peak suppression pool temP,erature obtained for Case 4 of GENE-770 ~ 092 is also included in~Tabl~ 1 to ~ow the net effect of all parameter changes.

I I  ;.

The results ~f the sensitivi~ analyses (Cties 2J to 2.S of Task 2) showed that the increment81 effect on peak suppression pool for each of the current input .

assumptions is: 2°F for feeqwater , 2°F for pump heat, 1°F for initial suppression po,ol temperature and S°F for the current heat e>cchanger heat renioval K-yalue.

. . When added, the total effect of usUig the airrent input assumptions is eqtial the

.

• effect of using the ANS S.1\decay heat instead of the May.;.Witt decay heat (10°F).

.1 Task3 Design Basis Analysis for a 2 LPCI/Containment Cooling Pumps arid 2 CCS~ Pumps Configuration (Case 3)

, I

• r r:-* r *

-ease 3 *provides an analysis tto update the UFSAR. long-tenn containment c0oling

. .basis for a configuration of.2 LPCJ/Con~ent Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW

. . ' .. *I

~: :~ .: . .. -. '-.

>*I .*_

GENE-637-042-i 193 I

I pumps_ The heat exchanger heat removal K-value for Case 3 of Task 3 is 365.2 I .

Btu/sec-°F, corresponding to a total CCSW pump flow rate of 6000 gpm (Reference 2). The results; of Task 3 can be used with the resultS of Case 4 of GENE~770-26-1092 ( 1 UPCI/Containment Cooling pump and 1 CCSW pump) to update the long-tenn containment cooling analysis basis in UFSAR. Section 6.2.

• I I

Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the long-tenn containinent pressure and temperature I .

response for Case 3 of Task 3. The peak ~ppression pool temperature obtained' for Case 3 of Task 3 is t'.67°F. This tempCi'ature is slightly less ( 1°F les~) thaa the value of 168°F obtain¢ previously for.the same containment cooling

• configuration (but with a 4>ta1 ccsw* pump ftow rate of 5600 gpm) for Case 3 of GE.NE.770-26-1092. Th~ lower peak suppression pool tempenlture obtained for Case 3 of. Task 3 is attnbuted to the increase in the heat exchanger heat removal K-value to 365.2 Btu/seo-!F from the value of 356. l Btu/sec-°F used for Case 3*

ofGENE-770-26-1092. . , /

i Table 2 provides a case sWnmary for case 3 of Task 3, including the peak

.suppression pool temperathre and peak long-term suppression chamber pressure.

, . I ,

• Table 2 also provides a.~ summary for Case 4 of GENE-770-26-1092,

. corresponding to a ~nfigqration of 1 LPCI/~ontainment ~nng' pump and 1.

. CCSW pump. The result& shown in Table 2 can be used to*update the basis in I . ,

UFSAR Secti~n 6.2 for long-term contaimnent cooling. .

' . *. . * -~ .

• Task4 Design Basis;Analyses for NPSH Evaluation (Cases 4.1 & 4.2) 1*

Cases 4.1 .

and 4.2 detennirie , I the suppression pool temperature and suppression *

.

• chamber pressure i'esponse'-which can be used to evaluate available NPSH for the LPCl/Containment._Cooling pumps and Core Spray pumps during a DB.A-:i.oCA.

The results for Case 4. i areI for a configuration of 1 LPCVContainment Cooliilg pump and 1 CCSW pump. , nie results for Case 4.2 are for a configuration of 2 LPCI/Contahlment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW pumps. CaSes 4.1 and 4.2 used '

. . , I .

• the same iriput assumptions ... as used for.

Case 3 of Task 3 and Case 4 of GENE-770-26-1092, respectively,,except that the suppression chamber pressure response, was minimized to minimize'. the.available NPSH.

4

\ : -.. * .. .- "

GENE--037-042-1193

• I The long-term drywell and suppression chamber pressure and suppression chamber I

airspace and suppression pool temperature responses obtained for Cases 4.1 and 4.2 are shown in Figures S through 10. The peak suppression pool temperature and the suppression chamber pressure

- at.the time of the peak suppression pool I

temperature for Cases 4.11and 4.2 are shown in Table 3.

• 3.0 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND ENGINEERING JUDGMENTS I

Input assumptions are used which: maintain the overall conservatism in the evaluation by maximizing the suppression pool temperature. Additionally, the input assumptions for tbe analysis in Task 4 are chosen to c;9nservatiVely minimi7.C th~ suppression chamber pressure and, therefore, minimize the available NPSH The key input assumptions which are used in performing the Dresden contalllment DBA~LOCA pressure and temperature response analysis are d~bed below. TU,>le 4 provides values ofkey Containment parameters common tQ all cases, while.Table~ and Table 6 provide case-specifi~)nputs.

1. The reaCtor is assumed to l>e operating at 102% of the rated thennal power;

• • * .2. *

• Vessel blowdown flow~ are based .on the Homogeneous Equih"brlum Model (Referenc~ 4).

I

• c

• . '.3. The core d~y heat is based on ANSVANS-5.1-1979 decay heat (Reference S).

. I '

[For the benc~ analysis in Task I and for the parametric ~dies in

• Task 2 (eXcept for ,Case 2.1 )*the core decay heat. used. was based on the May-Wrtt decay heat.model (Reference 3)).

4. Feedwater flow into the RPV continues Wrtil d the feedwater above lSO°F is injected into the vessel

[For the benclunar~ ~ysis in Task 1 and for the parametric studies in Task 2 (except for Case 2.3) feedwater is not added.]

-~.*

I.

I

' . 5

. *', I*.

(JE'.NE-637-042-1193

5. Thennodyiuunic equilibrium exists bet\veen the liquids and gases in the drywell.

Mechanistic heat and mass ;transfer between the suppression pool and the suppr~on chamber airspace are modeled..

I

6.

• To minimize the containmept pressure for the analyses in Task 4 it is assumed that there is only partial heat transfer to the fluids in the drywell from the liquid flow

• from the break which does not flash. To model partial heat transfer in the analysis,'

a fraction of the non-flaWDg liquid break flow is assumed to be held up in the drywell and to be fully mix~ with the ~ell fluids before tlowing to the suppression pool. Thermal; equilibrium conditions are imposed between this held-.

up liquid and the fluids in the I drywell as described in Assumption No. 5 above.

The liqtiid not held up is assumed ~ tlow directly to the suppreSsion pool without heat transfer to the drywell;tluids. For the analysis it is assumed that only 200/o of:* **

the non-flashing liquid flow from the break is held up in the drywell airspace.

I ,

Because the liquid flow from the break is at a higher temperature than the drywell .

' /

fluid, this minimizes the dtjwell' temperature and consequentljr minimizes the drywell and suppression chamber pressure..

. I . . , . *. ..

• The vent ~Stem flow to th~ suppression pool consists of a homogeneous mixture .

of the tluid in the dryWell.. *

. ...... .* 8 *The initial*suppreSsion pool volume is at the minimum Technical Specification  ; * .

(T/S) limit to inaximize th~ caladated suppression pool temperature...

. I I**.

I

9. For the analyses ofTask.4 the initial drywell and suppression chamber pressure are at the minimum expected operating values. to minimize the containment pressure.

• 10. For the analyses in Task 4, ithe maximum operating value of the drywell temperature of 1SO°F and a relative humidity of 100% are used to minimize the initial non-condensil>le gas mass and minimize the long-term contairunen~ pressure for the NPSH evaluation. . 1 .

11. The initial suppression poof temperature*is at the maximum TIS value (9S 0 F). to maximize the calculated suppression pool temperature.

~ .'

I

. ' *6 .

OENE-637-042~ 1193

• • [For the benc~ analysis in Task 1 and for the parametric studies in Task 2 (except for Case 2.3) an initial suppression pool temperature of 90°F is used.] *

12. Consistent with the UFS~ analyses, containment sprays are available to cool the containment. Once initiated at 600 seconds, it is assumed that containment sprays*,

are operated continuously ~th tio throttling of the LPCJ/Containment Cooling i

pumps.

. . I . .

13. Passive heat sinks in the dr:Ywell, suppression chamber airspace and suppression

• pool are conseivatively neglected to inaximize _the suppression pool temperature.

I

14. All Core Spray and LPCI/Containment Cooling system pumps have 1000/o of their horsepo"Wer rating converttrd to a pump heat input which is added either to the RPV liquid or *suppression pool water. /

[For the ben~ analysis in Task 1 and for the parametric studies in Task 2 (except for Case 2.4) pump heat was not added.]

I

• I I

15. Heat transfer from the priuiary containment tO the reactor building is conservatively neglected.

16. Although a containment atmospheric leakage rate of 5% per day is used to

.. determine the available NPSH in UFSAR Section 6.3, containment leakage is not

• included in the analyses in Task 4. Including containment leakage has no impact on the peak suppression pdol temp~rature, but will slightly reduce the calculated ' ..

containment pressure.* A leakage rate of S% per day is colisi~ered to be

- . I .

• unrealistically large since the Dresden T/S limits the allowable leakage tO l.6 %

per.day. Use of the leakag~ rate of,1.6 % per day would result in less than a 0~1 psi reduction in the pressur.es calculated in the analysiS. This effect is negligt"ble I

considering all other input conditions have been chosen at their limiting values to I. . . I minimize containment pressure and the usumption of only 20% holdup of the non-flashing liquid flow from die break in ~e drywell (see assumption no. 6).

• Therefore containment atrrlospheric leakage was not included in the analysis.

I

'7

GENE-637-042-1193

.*. *3 .1 Input Assumptions for B~hmark Case For the Benchmark case (Case 1 of Task 1), assumptions which are consistent.with those used in the original UFSAR analySis are used. This includes the use of May-Witt decay I

• • h~ (Reference 3), an initial suppf.ession pool temperature of90°F, no feed.water addition,

• no pump heat and heat exchanger ~at removal rate of 84.5 million Btu/hr (referenced to a suppressio~ pooHo-service water ttemperature difference of 85°F). The basis for wing these inputs in the benchmark analfsis is given in the following: ..

' ' I '

May-Witt Decay Heat I

.1***

The UFSAR does riot identify the decay heat model~ in the* original analyses.

• However, the Ma.y.:.Witt ~y ~model was used by GENE for containment analys~s in the time ft3me .

when .

the original tiFSAR I analyse! were perfonned. In addition a review of available files provided strong evidence that the May..Witt decay heat was used.in the

' . . . ' /. .*

• original containnterit UFSAR analyses. Therefore, it is expected that.the May-Witt decay heat model was used.'

I '

. .. . .* . I .

An Initial.S¥ppression Pool Temp~ture of90°F '* '* . . ., ;

..... . . The reqUirements for the containnient cooling sYstein given in '.the* Dresden* Allxiliaiy ...

Systems Data Book (Reference 6; for Unit '2 and .. ~ 7 for Unit 3) include a

• reqUirem~'that the inaximum po~l taJ1pera~* during normal op~tion be limited to* .,

'.90°F. Since References 6 and 7 WCJ'.C issued during the time frame pf the original tiFSAR '

~* analyses it~ expected mat an initiai pool temperature of90°F was ~secl.

,* -, * * . I * , ' "

• No Feedwater Addition *'

~* .. . '*

. The UFSAR states in Section 6.2. hhat feedwatei addition was terminated ~t the ~e . of the DBA-LOCA initiation. The pUrp0se of thiS assumption. as reported in the UFS~

.'.... was to maximize the short-term *cJntainment pressure response. There is no mention in UFSAR Section 6.2 th8t feedwate[ was.included in the long-term containment response analysiS.

Additionally, during the time I frame .of the original UFSAR. analyses it was not .

. *common practice to include feed~ter in the *containment analyses. It is therefore

. considered most likely that (eedwater was not included in the original 'OFSAR analysis.

• I * *

. "I I

• • * * * : 1* * . : * ( ' ** :

• 8. '

• -~ * * . * ,. .4,'

".t, .

-*.* '* .* l. . *I

~637-042-1193

• • No Pump Heat

. I .

It is stated in Section 6.2 of the UFSAR that pump heat for the LPCI/Containment *

. Cooling system pumps was incl~ed in the analysis.. ~owever, no mention is made of the pump heat contn"bution from the: Core Spray pumps. Since it is not certain how much pump heat was included in the original analysis, it was assumed that none was included.:

I .

LPCVContainment Cooling Sistpn Heat Exchanger Heat RemOYSl Rate of 276.1 Btur'F-sec .

The heat exchanger heat removal K-value used in the original analysis is not identified in the UFSAR. However, Mode C of the LPCI/Containment Cooling System Process Diagram (Reference 8) for the Dresden LPCJ/Containment Cooling,System gives a heat exchanger heat *removal rate of 84.5 million*Btu/sec with a suppression pool water inlet-

. to-service water inlet temperatu~e difference of 8SoP. This jS equivalent to a heat

. . .I . . . ..

exchanger heat removal K-value. of276. I Btu/sec.°F. Mode C of the Process Diagram .

_includes 1 LPCI/ContaiDmem ~oling pump and 1 CCSW pump and is shown as the

._limi:ting co~~ cooling cotjfiguration with resPect to maximum post-LOCA suppression pool temp~ .orCY'F).* .

• • In addition, the containment coaling equipment spe~c:ation given in UFSAR. Table 6.2-7 .

of

. shows a heat load 1os x 10 6 Btu/hr with a suppression pool water inlet-to-senijce water*. inlet temperature differenee I of 70°F. for a lJICI/Containment Cooling Pump flovl" rate .of 10,700 .

gpm and a CCSW pump flow rate of 7000 gpm. This heat load is .

• consistent with the heat load sb~Wn for.Mode B ofthe U'CJ/Contaimnent Cooling System Process Diagram for these pump flow rates. This shows consistency between the valu~

• I of the heat exchanger heat load specified in the UFSAR and the values specified*in the LPCI/Containment Cooling System Process Diagram.

• It is therefore expected that a heat exchanger heat removal K-value of276.1 Btu/sec-°F,

.specified for Mode C of the Proeess Diagram, wis used in the original UFSAR analysis for containlnent cooling.

configuration of 1 LPCJ/Containment Cooling pump and 1 CCSW'pump.* .,.

• 1 I

.I

• . ,_, r. * .

• 9

Ci~37-042-1193 4.1 Inputs

• The initial* conditions and k~ in~t parameters Used in the long-term containment pres~

. . I . .

and temperature analysis are provided in Tables 4, 5 and 6. These are based on the current Dresden containment ~which was confirmed by CECo in Reference 9.

• Appendix A provides the core d~y heat used in the analysis based on the May-Witt and

• ANSVANS-5.1-1979 models.

I, I

• . Reference 2 provided by CECo, bontains the LPCI/Containment Coolliig

. . . * . . . I ,' I '

pump and CCSW. pump flow ..

rateS and heat exchanger heat removal rates used for the analyses. .

I . . . ,.

perfonned with a configuration of 2 LPCL'Containment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW I '.  ; *'

pumps for this report. . ,,,.,./

4.2 Industry Codes and Standkds

. . .. . *..

• I .

. . . The ~re decay heat usecf for the ~nt~ent.anal}'Sis to update .the Dre~den UFSAR. ...

• _(CaSe83, 4.land 4.2) is based on the ANSI/ANS-5.1-1979.decayheat_~odel (Reference*

5). . . '; .**

' .. ~ . I 5.0 REGULA TORY REQuiREMENTs

.1 m% ofthe .

• , 1.'

The ~ysis are performed ~ ~ initial reaCtor thermal .power te\tet o( 1

. . rated reactor thennal po~er, per Regulatory Guide 1.49.

• Pertinent sections*of~he UFSAR Which are identified in this report are PFS~ Sections .

6.2* aitd 6.3. *.

I

. *-6.0 LIMITATIONS OF APPLICABILITY

• The resul~ of the* analysis des~D:ed in this report are based on the inputs described in

.. . *.* Section 4.0.: ;Arr/. changes to thes~ inputs should be reviewed to determine the impact on 9' > the resuhs and conclusions repo~ h=

~_. ... *. . - . ' .. *.  :** *. . . '

• 1 * ' . ** ,*. '.

• : .. 7

.10..

. ~ -. ,: .

• • 7.0 7.1 I

CALCULATIONS AND f;<>MPUTER CODES Calculation Record The calculations used for this repoit are documented in the GE Design Record File DRF T23--00717.

7.2 Model Description

.The GE computer code SHEX is~ to perfonn the analysis of the containment pressure arid temperature response. The SHEX code. has been validated in conformance With the I * .

requirements of the GE Engineerin~ Operating Procedures (EOPs). In addition, a

• benchmark analysis to validate the p>de for a plailt-specific application to Dresden* was

.perfonned, which i~ included in~ report (see Task 1).

, / '

SHEX uses a coupled reactor pres5ure vessel and containment mod~ based on the

• • ~ce 10 and Reference 11 models which have been reviewed and approved by the

• NRC, to calculate the transient res}lonse of the containment during the LOCA This model performs.fluid mass and en~ jc.1 balances on the reactor pnma*. :...

5 ..~:nd the

• ' :-;*:T*:'.:.C' suppression pool, and calculates tlie reactor vessel water I~ the reactor vessel pressure, .

the pressure and temperature. in the' diywell and suppression chamber airspace ~d the.

bulk suppression pool .

temperature!.

The various modes of operation of all important

)

• auxiliary systems, such as SRVs, the MSIVs, the ECCS, the RHll system (the

. I LPCl/Contamment Cooling Syst~ When applied to Drmden) and feedwater; are modeled. The model can simulate !actions based on system setpoints, automatjc actions

• • and operator-initiated actions.

• 7.3 Analysis Approach

. . I

'The long-term containment pressure and temperature response is analyzed with the SHEX I

code for the DBA.;LOCA which iSi .identified in the UFSAR as an instantaneous double-

. ended break of a recirculation suct,lon line. Several cases are perfonned to benchmark the SHEX code to the UFSAR and to;provide a basis for an update to the Dresden LPCIIContairunent Cooling system. *

• I

.I

..- , II

- '. .J

Ci~37-042-1193 The following describes the GE ~ysis and the purpose of each case. Table 4 provides values of the key conuunment parameters coifunon to all cases in this report. Case-specific eontainnient input parameters for the different caises are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. Except as identified below 8.t\d in Tables 5 and 6, the inP,ut values used in the analyses for this report are the same as previously used in the analysis d~ed in GENE-770-26-1092 (Reference 1 ) .

I Task 1 SHEX Benchmark Aqalysis (~ 1)

Case 1 I

-Purpose:

Task 1 consists ofa single c:aSe (Case 1) which is used to benchmark the SHEX code to the UFSAR analysis for a 1 LPCJYContainment Cooling System pump '&nd 1 Containment Cooling Seivice Water (CCS)V)pump configuration.

• I

. . The benchmark analysis in c~ 1 uses the s;une inputs and assumptions a$. those ysed

. I . . .

originally to analyze the* 1 LPiCIIContainment Cooling System pump ~d l Containment Cooling S~ce~ Water (CCSW) pump configuration for Case 4 in Section 6.2 of the UFSAR. The key inputs incliJde: an initial suppression pool temperature of90°F, no feedwater addition, no pump :heat for pumps taking suction from the suppression poo~

May-Witt decay heat and a U'CI/Containment Cooling heat exchanger heat removal K-

. value of276. i Btu/se~°F. ,

I Task2 Sensitivity Studies (<Cases 2.1to2.5)

. . I . .

The analyses in Task 2 quantified the sensitivity .of the peak suppression pool temperature to key I .

analysis parameters which are different for Case 4 ofGENE-770-26-1092 and.the *.

original UFSAR analysis..

.' I 12.

I .

Jr CJ-ENE-637-042-1193

• Case 2.1

Purpose:

Case 2.1 determines the effect of using ANS 5.1 decay heat instead ofMay-Witt decay heat.

on the UFSAR. DBA-LOCAlpeak suppress.ion pool temperature.

. . I .

Case

Description:

.I

.. I . . .

Case 2.1 is perfonned with tJie inputs used for the UFSAR benchmark analysis of rs

.Case .1 ex~pt that ANS S. l used instead of May-Witt decay heat.

Case2.2. "

,,../*

I

.. Purpos.e: * 'I

. I . . *

. . Case 2.2 determines . .

the effebt I of. using an initial suppression pool temperature .

of950f instead of 90°F on the UFSAR PBA-LOCA peak s\ippression pool temperature.

Case

Description:

.Case 2.2 is performed wiili .ihe ~puts used for the uFSAR benchmark analysis of I . .

• case 1 ~cept that an initial tmppression pool temperattire of95°F is*used~

• I Case2.3

Purpose:

Case 2.3 is perfonned to deiermine the effect of including feedwater mass and energy on the UFSAR DBA-LOCA peak kippressionpool temperature.

Case

Description:

• Case 2.3 is .Performed with the inpuis used for the UFSAR benchmark analysis of 13

. . . . . ." i .-

ClENE-637-042-1193 Case 1 except that feedwater jmass and energy are included.

C4se2.4 I

l

Purpose:

Case 2.4 detennmes the~ of including pump heat on the UFSAR DBA-LOCA peak *

• suppression pool temperatun?.

I Case

Description:

I ,

• Case 2.4 is performed ~th .~e input.s used for the UFSAR benchmafk analysis of c8se l

. except that the full rated PU111P I heat for one LPCI/Containment Cooling pump and one Core Spray pump is added to the ~essel-containment system. .

I I

• Case2.5 J

Purpose:

1 .

• case.2.s*~the.4ofu$naa~*IK1/C~Cooqsys1em.h..t exchanger heat removal K-v'1ue on the UFSAR DBA-LOCA peak suppr~ion pool

. temp~re.. . -~ *  !

I Case

Description:

i I

I ,

• Case 2.5 is. performed with

. the I inputs used for the UFSAR benchmark.analysfs. of Case

. I

• ~cept that* a LPCJ/eontainfent Cooling System heat exchanger heat removal K-Value of 249.6 Btu/sec-°F is used instead of the value of 276.1 Btu/sec-°F used for Case 4 of *

. UFSAR Sectfon 6.2. . . I I

I Task3 Design Basis Analysis for 2 LPCI/ Containment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW pumps I .

Configuration (Case!J)

I I

II .

I II I

I I

I

. 14 I'

~-637-042-1193

• • Case3 Putpose:

Task 3 consists of a slligle case (Case 3) which can be used to establish the design basis long-tenn post-LC/::.\. :::8ntah:m.;;nt pressure and temperature response for a containment. cooling configuration of 2 LPCJ!Containment Cooling pumps and 2 CCSW pumps. For this case updated values of the CCSW flow rate and heat removal K-value are used which. were provided by CECo (Reference 2) .

Case

Description:

• The analysis of Case 3 of Task 3 uses the same inputs as .

lised for Case 3 of GENE-

. **.770-26-1092 except that the CCSW flow rate ~d the corresponding heat removal

• K-value are updated with revised values provided by CECo in Reference 2'. . *

• .* Task4 . Design Basis Analyses for NPSH Evaluation (Cases 4.1 & 4.2)

• ne analyses in Task 4 determines the peak suppression pool temperature. ~d suppression

'. chamber preuure respoitse which can be used for evaluating available NPSH mlTgins for *

• the LPCI/Containnl~t Cooling pumps and Core S~ray pumps, which take suction from*

the suppression pool during a DBA-LOCA.* *These result_s can be used in an update of the.*

• Dresden NPSH evaluation in UFSAR Section 6.3 Case4.l The purpo~e of Case 4.1 is to obtain the suppression pool temperature and

. suppression chamber pressure which can be used to evaluate the available NPSH margins for a 1 LPCI/Containmerit Cooling pump - I CCSW pump configuration.

~ .,

. . ~ .'

15.

. G~37-042-1193

• Case

Description:

Case 4.1 is a re-analysis of Case 4 of GENE-77~26-1092 with the exception.that initial conditions are used which minimize the containment pressure. Table 1 shows

.these initial conditions. Additionally~ it is conservatively assumed that only 200/o of the break flow which does not flash achieves thermal equilil>rium with the fluids in

. the drywell. The rest flows directly to the suppression pool without any heat transferred to the drywell fluids. Because the liquid break flow is at a higher temperature than the drywell fluid, this minimizes the drywell temperature and, consequently~ the drywell and slippression chamber pressure.

Case4.,2

/*

Purpose:

• ... *The purpose of Case 4.2 is to obtain the suppression pool temperature and suppression chamber pressure which can be used to evaluate the available NPSH

.nwBins fora 2 LPCI/Containment Cooling pump*- 2CCSW pump configuration.

Case Descripti~n:

Case 4.2 is a're-lnalysis.ofcUe 3 of Task 3, except that the initial conditions used.

• for Case 4.1 and the assumption of partial heat transfer used for Case 4.1 are also used for Case 4.2, to minimize containment pressure (see Table I).

.. ~ . '

16

JAN 21 'r:l7 09:0BAM GE NUCLEAR ENERGY GENE-637-042-1193 8.0 Q/A RECORDS All work performed to produce this document IUld supporting background information is contained in the GE DesignRecord File DRF T23-00717.*

9.0 REFERENCES

1) GENE-770-26-10~ "Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, LPCI/Containment Cooling System Evaluation," November 1992.

2) Letter, T. A. Rieck (Nuclear Fuel Services Manager - CECo) 10 H. L. Massin (CECo), "Calculation ofLPCI HX Perfonnance at 212 Flow Conditions,"

December 13, 1993.

• .3) NED0-10625, "Power Generation in a BWR Following N~_!'Dlal Shutdown or Loss-of-Coolant Accident Conditions, d March 1973 .

• 4) 5)

NED0-21052, qMaximum Discharge Rate of Uquid-Vapor Mixtures from Vessels,"

General Electric Company, September 1975.

. "Dttay Heat Power in Llght*WaterReactors.'~ ANSI/ANS~ 5.1*- 1979, Approved by American National Standards Institute, August 29, 1979.

6) GE Report 257}iA.654, Dresden 2, h Auxiliaiy Systems Data Book," Rev. 3, April 15, 1969.

7) , GE Report 257HA749, Dresden 3, "Auxiliary Systems Data Book," Rev. 3, April.

• 15, 1969.*

8) LPCI Containment Cooling System Process Diagram, GE Dwg. 729E583, Rev. 1, February 24, 1969. .

9) Letter, S. Mintz to S. Eldridge (CECo), 11 Updated Basis for LPCVContairunent Cooling System Input Parameters for the LOCA Long-Tenn Containment Response Analyses.

• .**nresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3~" Novembel' 23, 1993.

17

GENE-637-042-1193

• ** 10) NEDM-10320,. The GE Pressure Suppression Containment System Analytical Model,"

March 1971.

• 1.1) NED0-20533, The General Electric Made m Pressure Suppression Containment System.

Analytical Model," June 1974.

. ./ .

-* ......* 18

~-637-042-1193

• TABLE l - RESULTS OF BENCHMARK CASE AND PARAMETRIC STUDIES IDcn:menlal .

Change in PclkPool PeakPool Teaapeq1ure Tempcrablre Rctamcto case De3cr:iDtion (OF) Case 1 r'F) 1 SHEX-04 BENCHMARK. 180 N/A MAY*wrrTDEcAY HEAT INITIAL POOL TEMP""' 900f NO FEEDWATERADDED.

NO PUMP HEAT ADDED K=276.l BTU/SEC-Of

Z.l ANSS.l DECAY.HEAT 170 -10 '

I 2.2 ~POOL TE.MP"" 95~ 181 . ..+)

2.3 FEEDWATEll ADDED 182 +2.

• *2.4 2.S GENE-770-

• PUMP HEAT ADDED K=249.6 B'IU/SE(:..OF 1 LPCI/CONTAINMBNT COOLING 182 18S 180 ".0

-i-2

+S

/

J 26-1092 PUMP,~1 CCSW PUMP CASE 4 ANS 5.1 DECAY HEAT INITIAL POOL TEMP= 950Ji FEEllWATER ADDm "

PUMP HEAT ADDED K=249.6 B1UJSEC-°F

.19

GE~-637-042-1193

• TABLE 2 - UPDATED CONTAINMENT RESPONSE FOR DRESDEN LPCl/CONfAINMENT COOLING SYSTEM Total Peak Long*

LPCll ll'C1./ Tenn No.of Containment Coot. No.of ex Peak Supprei;gon *.

ConL Cooling Cooling cCsW ccsw suppres.gon Chamber Cooling Pumps PumpFlow

• Pumps PumpFlow Pooll'cmp.. Ptessute Case* Loo ** Per Per 3 1 2 10000 2 4 (of 1. 1 sooo I . 3500

.. GENE-770-26-1092) (@26380s)

• I Core Spray Pump assumed for all Cases.

/

• • 1 Heat Exchanger per loop. /

• • . TABLE 3 -RESULTS OF CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS FORNPSHEVALUATIONS

.,.* 1  :

_. SuppreS&ion. '

Cbambe.r

.Pressure at

.. Time of Peak Peak~l Pool Tempciatuic Temperatwe Case uescr: ..~on (OF) Cosiv ** 1':'

4.1 l LPCl/CONT.AINMENT COOLING 180 4.3 :1*.. :

PuMP &. 1 CCSW PUMP (UFSAR CASE4) 4.2 2 LPCl/CONTAINMENT COOLING 167 3.7 PUMPS & 1 CCSW PUMPS (UFSAR .* -*

CASEJ).

GENE~37-042-1193

• :f.arameter Table 4- Input Parameters for Containment Analysis Units Value Used In ArwJysis

• Core Thermal Power MWt 2578 Ve5sel Dome Pressure psia 1020 Drywell Free (Airspace} Volwne ft3 158236 (including vent syst.em)

Initial Suppression Chamber Free (Airspace) Volume *: .

Low.Water Level (LWL) ft3 120097

• Initial Suppression Pool Volume Min. Water Level ft3 112000 No. ofDowncomers 96, Total Downcomer Flow Area

• ft2 301.6 Initial Downcomer Submergence ft 3.67 Downcomer I.D. ft 2.00 Vent System Flow Path Loss Coefficient

• .(includes exit loss) , . . S.17 Supp. Clwnber (Torus) ~or Radius ft 54.50 Supp~ Chamber (Torus) :Minor Radjus ft. .'15.00

• Suppression Pool Sur&ce Area ftl 997~.4 (in contact with .suppression chamber .

airspace)

' . 21

F GENE-637-042-1193

• • faramett!

Table 4 - Input Parameters for Containment Analysis (continued)

!lnili Value Used in Analysis Suppression Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breaker Opening Dift: Press.

- start psid 0.15

-twi'open psid 0.5 Supp. Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breaker Valve Opening Tune sec 1.0 Supp. Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum

,Breaker Flow Area (per valve ft2 l.14 assembly). .

Supp. Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum

• Breaker Flow Loss Coefficient f mcluding e>dt loss) , 3.47 No. of Supp. Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breaker Valve Assemblies

• (2 valves per assembly) 6 LPCI/Containment Cooling Heat *

• Exchanger K in Containment Cooling Mode Btu/sec.oP . SeeTable5

LPCI/Containrnent Cooling Service

. Water Temperature ~ 95 LPCI/Contairunent Cooling Pwnp Heat (per pump) . * .,. . ,

• hp 700 Core Spray Pwnp Heat (per pump) hp 800 Time for Operator to Tum On

.LPCI/Contaimnent Cooling System in Containment Cooling Mode (after LQCA signal) sec 600

~ ... *

~ ~ ,

• ~ ' f ** . *.:

~ .

.CiE?'IIE-637-042-1193

• Table 4 - Input Parameters for Containment Aiialysis (continued)

Feedwater Addition (to RPV after start of event; mass **

,and energy) .

Feedwater Mass' Enthalpy*

Node** ml (.Btu/lbm) 1 34658 308.0 2 96419 289.2 3 145651 2.68.7 4 91600 219.8 s

• 6S072. 188.4 Includes sensible heat.from the feedwater system piping met81. * *

• Feedwater mass and energy data combined to fit into 5 nodes (or use in the analysis.

. //

.** . I* .

• • -- .......... ' 23.

~ .

J CiENE-637-042-1193

• Table 5- LPCI/Containment Cooling System Parameten for Containment An8lysis Total LPCI/ LPC'I/

Containment Containment No.

Cooling Cooling of Total HX No.of Pumps Flow ccsw. ccsw Pump K

~ Loops*

• PerLoop .Cgpm> lump.s Flow(gpml (Btu/s-°F)

• l I 1 5,000 . 1 3,SOO 276.1 2.1 1 1 .. S,000 1 *3,500 276.1

. 2.2 1 I 5,000 1 3,500 276.1 2.3 1 1 5,000 .. 1 3,500 276.I 2.4 1 1 5,000 1 3,500 276.1 2.5 l I 5,000 1 /

3,500 249.6

• 3 1 2 10,000 2 6,000. 365.2*~*

• 4.1 .

4.2

• .one heat exchanger.per loop

'1

.. I 1

2 5,000 10,000 1

• 2

.3,500 6,000 249.6 365.2**

• • . (Reference 2).

L > ~ ~

. ,* .. -~ ~ ..

. ~ .

24

,. 0~37-042-1193 TABLE6 KEY PARAMETERS FOR CONTAlNMBNT ANALYSIS CASEl CASE2.1 CASE2.2 CASE2.3 CASE2.4 CASB2.S DECAY HEAT May-Wlu May-Will Ml.y-Witt Ma)-W'lli ~W'*

MODBL 1NlTIAL 90 90 90 . 90 90.

ll SUPPRESSION **

• POOL

'IEMPERATIJRB (Of)

. liEEDWATER No No No. *~ No *No.

ADDED PUMP HEAT*. No No No No .XSI No ADDED

/

HEA'l;' EXCHANGER ,276.l 276.l 276.l 276.l 276.l . 249.6 K*VALUE

. (BTU/SEC-°F)

e: lNITIAL DR.YWELL

.PRESSURE (PSIA) lS.95 1S.9S 1S.9S IS.9S 1S.9S 1S.9S INITIAL* *14.SS 14.85 14.SS 14.SS 14.8S 14.SS

• SUPPRESSION

. CHAMBER .PRESSURE - .

.* (PSlA)

. INITIAL DRYWEl.L .135 . 13S 135 . l3S 135 135 TEMPERAn.mE

• "~

INlTIAL DR.YWELL 10 .20 20 20 20 . 20 RELATIVE HUMIDITY

.. (°Ai)

INITIAL SUPPRESSION 100 . 100 100 100 100 100 ChAMBER. RELATIVE .

HUMIDITY(%) . '

• .HEAT TRANSFER 100 100 100 100' 100 100

. BETWEEN NON-FLASHING BREAK.UQUID AND DR.YWBIL FLUID C°Ai)

.tt**

• Changes to the Benchmark case (Case 1) ror the sensitivity &tudies are underlined.

. ., . ~:. ,.

GENE-637-042-1193

• CASE3 TABLE 6 (CONTJNU£0)

KEY PARAMETERS FOR CONTAINMENT .ANALYSIS

• CASE.4.1 CASE4.2 DECAY HEAT ANS5.J ANS1.1 ANSS.1 MODEL "IN111AL 9S 95 95 SUPPRESSION

• .l'OOL TEMPERATURE ffi FEEDWATER Yes

• Yes Yes ADDEO PUMP HEAT Yes Yes

. ADDED HEAT EXCHANGER 249.6 36SJ.**

K-VALUE (BTIJ/SEC-°F)

-INmAL DRY'WELL PRESSURE (PSIA) lN111AL SUPPRESSlON . 14.SS CHAMBER PlU:SSURE (PSIA)

INITIAL DRYWELL .135 lSO lSO

. *TEMPERA.llJRE ~

lNlTIAL DR.YWELL 20 100 JOO RELA11VE HUMIDITY

{°Ai) lNlTIAL SUPPRESSION 100 100 100

• CHAMaER. RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)

HEAT TRANSFER 100 20 20 BETWEEN NON-FLASHING BREAK LIQUID ANO DRYWELL Fi..UID (%)

'*Minimum opetating pressure ~in Table B. l of GENB-770-26--1092, which was pt£Viously prOVided by

• CECo. . . .

• • Reference 2 26.

.I

,1.  :

.I

.* I. . ~*i---.

~ . . .

~. .

\

too 1000 10,000 100,000

. TIME (SEC).

Figure J - Long-Tenn DBA*LOCA Suppression Pool Temperature Response for UFSAR Case 4 Bench Mark. (Case 1 of Task l) *

. 300. -"-*-------* _____..._____________...--_________:._.._

1 SUPPRESSION POOL l SUPPRESSION OIAMBER AIRSPACE .

.200.*~-~-----*-~--~---~1--------~

I

~i---- , --L*---

• ~ .

100. ------------t-------------*t-----------~-------------~~-----~*--

10 100 lOOO 10,000 100,000

. .TIME (SEC) .

Figure *2*- Long-Term DBA-LOCA Suppression Pool aitd Suppression Chamber Airspace Temperature Response

. (Case 3 of TJSk 3) *

~

I

• . .1

• • ~*-.

~~.

I *

.~

• • 1**

• ) 60.r---*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~JD-R-~~~L~~~~---~-~-

l SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE .

*1;;.

ilO~

~*

. tr~

I

.I 2 * :I 0 N

20. ,_

.~

I

\0

• ~

,..I o*.

10 100 . IOOO 10,000 100.000

• T~($EC)

Figure 3 - Long-T~rm DBA-LOCA Ory\\rell and Suppression Chamber Airspac.e Pressure Response.

• "*. (Case 3 of Task 3)

• I -*** *

.. ' . . ' ~

~.**

. *mo:

r--------....--_..;...~---'---.---.;.____;_ _ ___;_-r-_ _ _ _ _.....;__. _ _ ,_ _ _ ._.

. 1..... -~

.. J

• '".J***

'*1*

.* .. ~

'\

\,

100 .. ~------.......__ _ _ _ _..;___.L__ _ _ ___;,_ __Ji___ _ _ _ _ _J___:Sll£~l*IJll -l 10 100 1000 l0,000 . 100,000 TIMB(SEC)

Figuce *4 - Long-Tetm DBA-LOCA Drywell Temperatute Response.

• (Caae 3 of Task l) .

.*:*.~*

. . ' . ~ ' ';

=, ~

. ' I

. 300. I

- I SUPPRESSJON POOL 2 SUPPRESSJON CHAMBER

.. AIRSPACE i

.; . ,. ~

i

~

.. l 200. ..

... *~.

. ***~ -- ..

2 i

\,,.)

.. 1~

/

100. -

- '\

~

- ffX-o.i -3 0.

10 100 . 1000 )0,000 100,000 TJME(SHC)

• Figure S - Long-Term DBA-LOCA Suppression Pool and Suppression Chamber Airspace Temperature Response (case 4.1 of Task 4) . *

• • • )

• ~

~

N

. I * * *..

. ~

. . '* J DRYWEU.

6l 2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE

. w ..

I-**

I-'

!i

~

7..

c

()

r

. llQ, . ~

I

~-

u G)

~

I 0\

. 20.

.\ w

~

~

'iir:,..,.,.2

• C:

.7 N

- I IO

- . w

-- I o.*10 *. Sllfl-IJll -3 100 )()00 10,000 100,000

. TIME (SEC)

Figure* 6 - Long-Tenri DBA-LOCA Drywell and Suppression Chamber Airspace.Pressure Response.

(Case 4. I of Task 4)

• I .

300 .

(£ w

w 200.

,_ SHE 1-01' -J 100 ~L10-.__,..~~_:..._--~-l.JO-O~~~~-----ll.0_0_0~~~~----~1~0.-ooo-----:--~~~7i~oo-.o~oo-=--=-~---

TIMa(~EC).

Figure.-7~: Long".term DBA-LOCA Drywell Temperature Response.

• *,(Case 4.1 of Task 4) * - .

' ' '. I SUPPRESSION POOL.

2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE

.J:' **

.* ,l I *; .

,2

,... --~

w:*

- ' t:::I

.~-

/ .. *

~* *'

I -

,\

o.--~~~----~-a..---------~--~_._~----~~----'--~-----------L.~-til~-~~~~-';__

• 10 IOO JOOO 10.000 100,000 TlMB(SEC).

Figure 8

• Long-Term DBA-LOCA Suppression Pool and Suppression Chamber Airspace Temperature Response (Case 4.2 of Task 4) * ,

.* . 60 * .-------'--.--_..;..-----.-----------.r--------,..-----

1DRYWELL 2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE

--.--** --*-* --- *- ~!!* _ _. _____ -----~---.. - - * -- __ __.:._--:-- - - - - - - - - - - - -  ;.._..._ !-"' - - - * - - - - - - - - - ---* - - - - - - * - - - - - -----. ---- - - - - - - -- -* -*-- -

w ua .. ~ '*.

i 20.

\ 2 51EMl11 -!I 0.

JO 100 1000 l0,000 100,000 TIMB(SEC) fjgure 9 - Long Term DBA-LOCA D.ywell and Suppression Chamber Aimpace Pressure Response.

-, ... * (Case 4.2 of Task 4) *

• • • ~

• l .

. t.

r '

• ~ :

' * * * ;*, *

• r

~

.,i,

. . I

. /' . . )

• .: r ' : " '  :-'~1 .' ' ,. *,*

. . ' ~

i J. ~ -  :

• t' ' ** - - ' * *

.-,.:,"r**.:.*; .

\ ..

• ,1,,

• J 'I I .

~

I

.... ~

I

~

100 . 1000 10,000 100,000

~($EC)

Figure 10 - Long.Term DBA-LOCA Drywell .Temperature Response.

(Case 4.2 of Task 4)

J

<lBl'lE-637-042-1193 10.0 APPENDICES A. CORB HEAT DATA.

/

/

I

.. r

.I I

~-

f "I*1

!1* -*

i .... ~*I

.*.. **- -- 37

• . *'-.*....  ;*..... - -:.: : "' ~- ...

• ~""'-.  :;: -:- - '1 _~:~..~--~: * *  :- .

GBNB-637-042-1193 I

I APPENDIXA COREDBCAYHBATDATA I

I I

Table A. l provides the core heat q:ttu1sec) based on the May-Witt (.Reference A.2). decay

• heat model used for Cues.I. 2.2, +.3, 2.4 and 2.S of Section 7.0. The oore heat includes

. . .. decay heat (May-Witt), metal-~ reaction energy, fission power and fhel relaxation energy. The core heat in Table A: 1 is nannaliz;ed to the initial core thermal power of 2518MWt.

I .

Table A.2 provides the core heat Q)~sec) based on the ANS S.1 (ReferenCe Al) decay*

' heat model used for Cases 2.1~ 3, 4.1 and 4.2 of' Section 7.0. The core heat includes decay heat (ANS S.1-1979), m~water reaction energy, tlssion power and fbel relaxation energy. The core heat 'n Table A.2 is normalized to the initial core.thermal powero~2S78 MWt.  ;*

I /*

I .

.. Appendix A I"~ferences:

I

• • • • • .ir* NED0_.1062S,.

"Power G$eration I

I in a BWR PolloWing Normal Slmtdown.. or *

• . Loss-Of-O>olant .

Accident!

. .I Conditions,*

March 1973, . *

. . *I . . .. .

.* 2) "DeCay Heai Power in Li&iht Water Reactors, a ANSVANS-S. l ~ 1979, Approved by Amen.can National sia+dards Instituie, AusUst 29, 1979.

• I', '

': 2 *.

. ... . .I* .

,I I

.. I*,*

i.

I - - ~- .

- .i. .-...

I.

-~ .-'. ...--' -.. *.. . . . i

~* . -- .

.* ~

. .. ,,£_**. _... * .*

. ,, .... .~

~* ..... *'* . !

I* .*

• Core Heat (normalized to the initial .core thennaJ power of2S18 MWt) .

• = decay. heat+ fisslon po~+ fbel relaxation energy+ metal-water reaction eneriY *

• • Metal-water reaction heat is ljasumed to end at 120 seconds.

f' .

. I

CJE;NE-637-042-1193

• • ~

TABLE ~.2 -CORE HBAT ANS S.1 I

T"une (sec)'. Core Heat*

0.0 1.0078 0.1 ..9976 0.2 .9694 0.6 .7404 0.8 ,6907 1.0 ,5802 2.0 i .S480 3.0 .5852 4.0 ,. .S1SS 6,0 .5401' 8.0 i I*

.4637

.. ,JO. .3771 I

20. .08192 I

30. I

.06405

40. .04697 /

60. .042"ll*/

., ~.*

~*~. *~..

80.

. 100.

. "120~

12L**'. ... * '.i

• I

.I

• I

~04064

.03925

.03815

'.03033 200. I .. .02752' I 600. .

I

' .02212 1000. .01956

• .~2000. . I I

.01599

• 4000.

. *I

! .01273

• . * :01033

.. . . ,_ . 7800. .. I1. '"

. ..  ::. . . 10200: .01012

.20400. l' . ;001491 39600. "

• . ! .. .007060 ..

. ' **,' .61200. .006306

• I i

.. , . . , . *core Heat (no~ to the initial core thermal power of2S78 MWt) . .

. . . :. *. *. . .: *.*=decay heat_+ .fission po~er + fuel relaXation energy +metal-water reaction energy

.. "'.~*"'..

• ~ ..* * ** Metal-water reaetion heat is llssumed to end at 120 I

seconds. , .

. .,.. ** - -: . . .~- .'*

-~ ,. -

,1*., : * - * .

/

, -* .. -~

,. *:,* Reference 13 *

.*> :-~**:-~GgNE-770~26;;;10~2 *-:-*

Dresde~. Nu~lear

• Power Station

.. . *:  :.--,~.: *.....*

• units* '>2: and****3*

• LPCI/Coritaiiurient

• Coolirig .System

' . ::Evaluation dated November 1992. . .

.. . , * *< ... :1; .

• • "(

... ~....... '*

.. ~ .. ~ '

~ *.'.

• ,. ,, *

• J-,,..:;.L.." ' .. --~-

• • • • • :.1 .**

~ *'

.** r* ~ -,,

'* ... ..* ~'-. .s. ** -':1 .... I

'*~' _ .. .,. *-*,*.

- : ~- '1. :.  ;.,_*.*

• C

.* ' *~* ,.

~

.. ~ .

J  :.:

,';\

,* . _. -*