ML20076D211
| ML20076D211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1991 |
| From: | J. J. Barton GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076D209 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107260127 | |
| Download: ML20076D211 (29) | |
Text
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s e o Q* %
GPU HUCLEAR CORPORATIO!4 OYSTER CREEK HUCLEAR GEllERATING STATION Provisional Operating Liconee No. DPR-16 Technical Specification Change Request No. 198 Docket No. 50-219 Applicant submita, by thin Technical Specification Chango Request No. 190 to I the Oyster Creek Huclear Generating station Technical Specificatione, a proposed change to page 5.2-1.
Dy 4 ebt 44(^ok t%
r Vice President and Director Oyster Crook Sworn and Subscribed to before tne this #dd day of bO g , 1991.
. gg -
W annummone g-w MuterretesefNew M4 /9r l
9107260127 910722 9 PDR ADOCK OM'O l e
s- r Uti1TED STATES OF AMERICA HUCLEAR hEGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter ) Docket tio. 50-219 GPU Nuclear Corporation )
RElalf1CAIEE_EEILVlf%
This is to cortify that a copy of Technical Specification Chango Roquent tio.
198 f or Oyster Crook Huclear Generating Station Technical Specifications, filed with the U.S. IJuelear Rogulatory Comm4ssion on 144 JL , 1991, has this day of LA dA , 1991, been served on the Major of Lacoy Township, Ocean County, tiew Jereoy by deposit in the United Statos mail, addresmod as follows:
The Honorable Debra Madensky Mayor of Lacoy Township 818 West Lacey Road Forked River, llJ 08731 13y, N{ rh _9,e 4~
J. J. 11arton Vico President and Director Oyster Creek
s l- s OYSTER CREEK WUCLEAM CENERATING STATION PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE No. DPR-16 DOCKET No. 50-219 TECHNICA1 GPECIFICATION c)lANGE REQUEST NO. 190 Applicant hereby requests the Commission to change Appendix A to the above captioned 14 cense as below, and pursuant to 10 CPR 00.92, an analysis concerning the determination of no significant hatards considerations is also presentod 1.0 $ECTION TO DE CHf.fpfa-Coction 5.2.
2.0 EXIIlli OF CHANGA Revise Technical Specification 5.2.A. l 3.0 C[jMOES REOUESTEQ l l
The requested change is shown on . attached Technical Specifications page 1 5.2-1. Related changes to Technical Specifications nasos are regotted on I pages 4.5-12 and 4.5-16. In addition, editorial changes unrelated to the -l basis of this request are nonded on pages 3.4-7 and 3.5-0.
4.0 ELfRPOSE The Oyster Creek drywell internal design pressura is presently 62 psig.
This design pressure value is based on loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) simulation tests which were conductod to co 'Irm the adegiacy of the pressure suppression containment design of the dega Day plant (Ref. 1).
However, a comparison of Oyster Crook and Dod, ,a Day containment design features shows that the Oyster Creek drywell pressure should be less than that for Dodoga Bay (Pef. 6).
Corrosion in the drywell shell has prompted GPUN'to establich an Oyster Creek specific design pressure. This new value would be used for any future drywell repair decisions. To develop such a design pressuro,_ state- '
of-the-art analytical tools were used in conjunction with experimental data. This evaluation includes a recalculation of the reactor vessel blowdown into the drywall as well as the correaponding containment 7
response.
Reactor vessei blowdown was calculated using both TRACC and RELAP5. TMCG is a GE computer code that has been qualified for use in evalustang boiling water reactor (BWR) LOCA response (Ref. 8-10). RELAP5 (Ref. 2) is a computer code- which has been developed to simulate light water reactor transients as well as large and small brnak loss-of-coolant accidents.
Therefore, both of these computer codos are appropriate for this analysis.
The containment - response to the reactor vocael blowdown was calculated using M3CPT and CONTEMPT. M3CPT is a GE computer code uued to evaluate the ~
short term containment response to-a design basis LOCA. It is the same code that was used to evaluate the Oyster Crook !>>CA containment preanure response for the Mark I Long Term Program analysia (Ref. 5). CONTEMPT
.- % (Raf. 3) is a nuclear reactor containment analysis code which is used to evaluate praecure temperature responne to pass and energy inputs (blowdown of reactor vessel). These contairmnt codes in conjunction with the vessel blo.edown resulte provide a complete method for establiehing an oyster Creek specific design pressure.
The results of this evaluation show that the peak drywell pressure r following a design basis loss of coolant accida:nt (DDLOCA) is 38.1 pe19 To eotablish a design pressure value, an additional 15% allowance is added to give a conservative value of 44.0 poig.
In addition to the drywell pressure change, unrelated revisions are needed to two Bases pages. The last paragraph in Section 3.4 Bases on page 3.4-7 is revised to clarify that the containment spray system m6y be inoperable when primary containment integrity is not required. In addition, the statement concerning chromated torun water is deleted since chromates are no longer used to treat toruo water. The chromated water has boon ,
replaced. Also, on page 3.5 8 <of Goetion 3.5 Hases, un editorial change is necessary to properly state the 2 psig external design prospute ot' the drywell.
5.0 ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESSURE 1he oyster Crook drywell design pressure was originally established at 62 psig. This pressure was first establishod as a design yhlue for the Dodega Day plant and later specified for oyster Creek. 'the Bodega pay design pressure value is based on LOCA simulation tests. These tests were conducted to confirm the adequacy of the pressure suppression containment design of the Bodega Bay BWR. The tests showed that the maximum deywell pressure for those tests which were representative of the Bodega Day design was 52 peig. An additional 10 pot was added when catablishing the Bodega Bay design pressure of 62 psig.
This value was assigned to cyeter Creek even though there are major differences in the design of the two plants. The differences between the plants are such that the peak drywe1 A pressure for oyster Creek is lass than that for Bodega Bay. The oystar Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) correlates the Bodega Bay test values for peak drywell pressure an a function of the ratio for drywell to wetwall vent area to break area (Ref. 6, Fig. 6.2-6). This particular plant parameter plays a key role in determining the peak drywell pressure. The larger this ratio is, the greator the impact of the suppression system on reducing poak -
drywell pressure. This correlation produced an estimate of the peak Oyster Creek dryvell pressure to be 37 peig.
Additionally, the oyctar Creek FSAR (Section 6.2.1.3) presents calculated results of the oyster Creek response to a DBLOCA. The FSAR states that this model tenda to overpredict staximum containment pressures when comparsd with Bodega Bay and Humbolt- Bay pressure suppression tests (Ref. 6, Figo. 6.2-8 and 6.2-9). Tho result of this analytical model when applied ,
to oyster (l reek was a peak dryvell pressure of 33 peig. Both of these peak l drywell pressureu presented in the FSAR are less than the 52 psig value I
established for Bodega Bay. It was thus previously recognized that the
, 62 paig design value was significantly larger than that which would be l adequate for oyster Creek.
l l
l -
I
\
6.0 RR-EVALl!A npN OF TIIE D M LL DESIOlt PFJJpyEE To establish an anpropriate design pressure for the Oyster Creek drywell,
, -it is necessary to simulate containment response to the DilLOCA. For peak drywell pressure, this is the double-ended guillotine break of a recirculation loop pipe. The simulation must, therefore, include a reactor vessel model of this accident.
l In addition, it is necessary to simulate the Mark 2 pressure suppression containment. From this simulation, the drywell pressure response to the double-ended guillotino break can be determined.
6.1 titthgag In order to simulate the peak drywell prussure for oyster Creek, four l' computer codes were used (refer to Fig. 1). The first two of these
- t. include the CE BWR version of TRAC (TRACO, Ref s, 0, 9, 10) and RELAP5 MOD 3 (Ref. 2). These codes were independently used to calculate the oyster Creek reactor vessel blowdown for the DBLOCA.
The results from these analyses were then used as input to a escond set of codes. These codes were used to evalunto the drywell pressure response to the blowdown. The first of theas, H3CPT, (CE containment ,
code) was used . to predict the containment responsb to the TRACO blowdown. The second code used in the containment analysis ir CONTEMPT /RI280. CONTEMPT was used to evaluate the containment j . response to both the RELAP5 and TRACO blowdowns. Thus, the CONTEMPT results provide a comparison of two dLiforent blowdown models as well j as two containment models. ,
i 6.2 TRACO Begt_Jetimate Vessel Blowdownffgde,1 TRACO was used to establish a best estimate blowdown for Oyster Creek. A multi-node reactor vessel model was developed for Oyster Creek as part of the revised 10 CFR 50 Appendix K analysis program.
This same model was used for this evaluation (Ref. 4). The nodahization was performed with vossol geometry as well as governing phonomena in mind.
The initial conditione assumed (Table 1) are the same as those used for the OC Hark I Long Term Program containment analysis (Ref. 5).
They are also consistent with how the plant in currently operated.
L The resulting mass and energy release are provided in Tabla 2 and Figure 2. This represents the TRACO best estim6te blowdown.
In order to insure confidence in the TRACO break flow model, a comparative analysis was performed. This analysis (Ref. 4) compared the TRACO best estimate recults with A. number of actual blowdown i testo. The teste included o Simple vessel blowdown tests (PSTF) o Scaled integral BWR tests (TLTA, FIST, FIX II) o . Full size reactor vessel tests (Marviken) r
?- $
Each blowdown was divided for analytical p rposes, into two regimes.
The first regime represents the period during which the vessel conditions at the break are subcooled liquid. The second represents a two phase condition at the break. An average break mass flow rate was obtained in each flow regime for the test data and the TRACO prediction. From these values, a break flow multiplier was developed for each regime. The multipliere were defined to be the ratio of the measured to predicted average break flow rate. The maximum multiplier l
(multip11er=1.25) was then applied to the best estimate TRACO break I flow from the Oyster Creek LOCA analysis (Table 2). This produced what will be referred to as the TRAco best estimate blowdown for Oyster Creek. It should be noted that this multiplier will increase the tota \ mass and energy into the containment by 250 This is not physically possible since the source of this mass is the reactor ,
vessel which transports a clearly defined quantity of mass and energy I through the break. The multiplier addresses uncertainty of TRACG l prediction in the rate of transport only. l 6.3 RELAP5 Best Estimate _Vesegl BlowdoMD lod 21 To independently confirm the TRACG blowdown results, a RELAPS HOD 3 j blowdown model was developed. This model was nodalized with the same '
considerations as those used for the TRAco model. The blowdown i results are provided in Figure 3 and Table 3. This will be referred !
to as the RELAP5 best estimate blowdown. A graphical comparison with TRACO is shown in Figure 4. The results presented in Figure 4 show that TRACO predicts a somewhat higher peak flow rate out of the vessel. However, the RELAP5 code predicts a larger initial rate of change of blowdown flow. Therefore, the impact on the containment
-response is expected to be different.
The RELAPS blowdown model was compared with actual test data from Harviken tests (Ref. 7). This comparison was used to establish a multiplier for the RELAPS blowdown. As was the case for the TRACO blowdown,' the multiplier addresses uncertainty in the rate of break mass flow rate only. As a result, the integrated mass and energy into the containment model is in excess of what would actually occur. For the RELAP5 blowdown, this multiplier le conservatively set at-1.30.
6.4 Containment Model fM3CPT)
-The containment response to the TRACG blowdown was evaluated with the CE code H3CPT.- This code is used to evaluate short term DBLOCA response of the containment. H3CPT was used in the evaluation of the Oyster Creek LOCA containment pressure response for the Mark I Long Term Program analysis (Ref. 5).
-. .- - _ - . - - - - - ..- _ _ _ . . _ ~ _ . _
Three separate cases wer.5 run using this code. The initial conditions for these cases are provided in Table 4. Case 1 is the same set of conditions used 'a the Mark I Long Term Program analysis. The vant system downeomers are assumed to be submerged 4.06 feet (Ref. 5) below the suppression pool surface. This value corresponds to the highest water level allowed for continuous operation of the p) ant. This assumption increases the drywell preasure required to clear the vents snd thus increases the peak pressure. It is also consistent with the volume assumed for the torus vapor space. This volume is minimited by setting the suppression pool at the high level. The non-condensibles which are swept into this air space will produce a higher torus back pressure because of the smaller available volume. Finally, a zero pressure difforential between the drywell and the wetwell is assumed.
This ash'aption is consistent with allowed plant operation. In
\ addition, this will contribute to the maximum water leg length inside of the vent's downcomers. With the drywell at an initially higher preasure than the wetwell, water in the downcomer will be partially forced out of the pipe. This reduces the water leg inside of the downcomer. With a zero pressuro diff6rential, water will not be forced out of the pipe.
Case 2 is a variation of Case 1. The b difference is that the initial containment pressure is increased to 16.1 paia, and the wetwell air space is reduced by 400 ft3 The increased pressure corresponds to the highest operating pressure expected (high drywell pressure slarm setpoint) under normal conditions for Oyster Creek.
(This maximizes the mass of nrn-condensible gases in the containment). The reduction of the air space volume is an added conservatism.
Both cases 1 and 2 are run using the best esti. mate blowdown calculated oy the TRACG computer model. Case 3 is identical to Case 2 except that 1.25 tim * (refer to Section 6.2 discussion of multiplier) the TRACG best ev.4 mate blowdown is used.
The results of these cases (Ref. 4) are provided in Figures 5 chrough 7 The peak calculated pressures are provided in Table b.
6.5 CONTEMPT CONTAINMENT MODEL The CONTEMPT computer code was used to evaluate the M3CPT results.
This is accomplished by running the three previously described casea with the TRACG blowdown. The results are then compared with those calculated by M3CPT. In addition, the code was used to compare the impact of the different blowdown models on the containment response.
This is accomplished by running the three cases previously desvriced with each blowdown. The CONTEMPT results were then compared for each blowdown.
The results obtained using the TRACG blowdown (Figa. 8 to 10) show good agreement with that calculated by M3CPT (Figs. 5 to 7). A graphical comparison shows that both models exhibit similar pressure profiles. This indicates that the containment's pressure suppression phenomenon is modeled properly. The peak pressures =re compared with M3CPT in Ltble 6. The comparison shows that CONTEMPT calculates a slightly lower pressuro than M3CPT. It is concludod that the models are in good agtoement.
1
The same three cases wore run using the RELAPS blowdown results, however, a 1.3 multiplier was used (refer to Section 6.3). As can be seen from Figures 11 to 13 (Table ?), the peak pressure occurs somewhat earlJer than for t'ae TRACG blowdown. This is a result of the containment's dynamic respon r to tha different blowdowns depicted in Figure 4.
The peak trywell pressures t . sulated using these different methods are in good agreement and confirm what was described in the FSAR (discussed previously). It is concluded that following a DBLOCA, the peak drywell pressure will not exceed 38.1 peig. Therefore, after epplying a 15% allowance, the design pressure for the OCNGS drywell can be adequately established at 44.0 psig.
- 1. 0 DETERMINATION We have determined that the proposed Technical Specification change involves no significant hazards ;onsiderations as discussed below.
- 1. The change will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of any accident previously evaluated.
The change in drywell design pressure has no ef fect on the probability of loss of coolant accidents which the containment is designed to help mitigate. The consequence of the d3 sign basis LOCA is not changed since adoquate structural integrity is maintained. The drywell design pressure value of 44 peig is greater than the calculated peak pressure of 38.1 psig.
- 2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Thu prirsry containment functions to minimize the release of radioactive materials during a loss of coolant accident. The change in drywell design pressure will continue to ensure this function is maintained. Since the containment mitigates not initiates LOCAs, new or different accidents are act created.
- 3. A significant reduction in margin of safety is not involved.
The margin of safety for drywell structural integrity is based upon compliance with ASME code limits at a gis en design pressure. The drywell design pressure change to 44 poig maintains the margin of safety since the vessel will still be required to comply with ASME code limits. The change in design prersure reflects a reduction in uncertainties and conservatisms which resulted in the design pressure of 62 peig. Therefore, it is concluded that the drywell design pressure change will not reduce the margin of safety.
8.0 CONCLUSTONS The peak drywell pressure is calculated conservatively to be 38.1 psig.
This value should be used with an additional 15% allowance added to give a drywell design pressure of 44 peig. The change in design pressure will not impact plant safety following any design basis accident.
'.. s
9.0 REFERENCES
- 1. " Preliminary Hazards Summary Report, Dodega Day Atomic Park Unit No. 1", Docket No. 50-205, December 28, 1962.
- 2. NUREG/CR-4312 EGG-2396 - Appendix A RELAP5 Input Data Requirements Prepared for Release of RELAPS MOD 3 EGr.G Idaho Inc., Idaho Falls, ID, January 1990.
- 3. CONTEMPT EI/28C - A Computer Program for Predicting Containment Pressure - Temperature Transients.
- 4. C.ENE 770-07-1090 February 1991, ' Oyster Crwek LOCA Drywell Pressure Response'.
- 5. NEDO-24572, ' Oyster Creek Plant Unie ne Load Definition, July 1982'.
- 7. Intermountain Technologies Di' taici CAIC, 'Trancmittal of RELAPS-MARVIKEN Comparison Summary', DCT-636 10 from Don Slaughterbeck to N. Trikouros.
- 8. NURE0/CR-4127-1, EPRI NP-3987-7, GEh? .,0R75-1, "BWR Full Integral Simulation Teat (FIST) Program: 7 p.0-%'R Modal Development, Volume 1 -
Numerical Methods", July 1985.
- 9. NUREG/CR-4127-2, EPRI NP-3907-k, O uP-30075-2, "BWR Full Integral Simulation Test (FIST) Programa M.C-BWR Model Development, Volume 2 -
Models", August 1985.
- 10. NPREG/CR-4127-3, EPRI NP-3907-3, GEAP-30875-3, "BWR Full Integral Simulation Test (FIST) Programs TRAC-BWR Model Development, Volume 3 -
Developmental Assessment", September 1985.
.- , .. ~ - . . . . . . _
- e. ,
._ '; 3 ... TABLE l' TRACO/RELAPb INITIAL CONDITIONS IBhqq RELAPS Reactor Power (% Rated) 102 100 Dome Prwesure (PSIA). 1035 1035 Reactor Core Flow (MLB/HR) 61.0 b5.56
- Steam Flow (MLD/ilR) 7.395 7.506 Core Inlet Temperaturo (*F) 525.0 512.0 Feodwat , r Temperature ( *F) 317.0 316.5
'Dreak Area ~(FT )
Vessel Side Area 3.109 3.11 (limiting flow area junt upstream of break) ,
Pipe Side Area 3.149 at break 3.11 at. break-1.547 at flow venturi 1.55 at flow venturi
- Does not include the core bypass flow.
.l.-.. _ J. , __ . _ _ . _ . , _ _ _ . . . _ -. . . _ , . - ,
'h e . TABLE 2 TRACO BEST-ESTIMATE BREAK __ MASS' FLOW RATE (WITHQUT MULTIPLIER) AND ASSCCIATF&
ENTHALPY FOR INPUT TO M3CPT05 AND CONTEMPT CONTAINMENT RESPOfiSE ANALYELS TIME (SEC) MASS FLOW RATE (LBM/SEC) ENTHALPY fBTU/LBM)
L 0.0. O. 519.3 0.49365 42045 518.1 0.65958 40896 518.2
. 0.85506 41883 518.1
-lio73 40381 518.2 1.671 38102 518.1 2.1645 34566 518.1 2.9583 29654 518.9 l ~3.9009 24818 520.8 l-5.1141 23000 523.9 5.9771' 22997 525 G l
L 6.9483 22553 526.8 l'.
7.9597 22133 527.7
- 9.0245 21335 529.9 9.9242 20052- 534.7-12.137 15376 572.1 14.937' 9476 745.6 20.936' 6945 714.4 25.192 4165 832.4 30.0 854 871.2 i
NOTE: -M3CPT05 ACCEPTS 20 BREAK MASS FLOW RATE AND ENTHALPY POINTS.
l
~ ,
[. - -+ EDldL.2
. RELAPS BREAK FLOW RATE-fWITHOUT MULTIPLIER) AND ASSOCIATED ENTHALPY FOR INPUT TO CONTEMPT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS
-IIME ISEC) MASS FLOW RATE fLBM/SEC) ENTHALPY (BTU /LBM) 0 0 10 . 1 23970 527.7 0.2 -31710 528.9 0.3 30110 525.9 0.4 31640 5E6.7 0.6 32660 527.6 1.1 :32930 528.2 1.3- 33300- 529.6 1.5 32580 527.4 2.1 31670 530.4 2.6 30060 534.5 t
3.2 28380 534.6 3.6 -27700- 538.8 L 4_ 27100 540.5 4.7 25900 544.3 5 25070 547.5 6 22360 544.6 7 19670- 550.3 8 17550 553.5 9 16520 553.7 10 15890 548.1 11 15380 545.4 -1 12' 14750 547.8 l
- 13. 14000 558.3 14 11930 596.2 15 11570 583.9 '
! 16' 11200 586.2 17- 10450 581.5 18- 8612 608.1 19 - 7498 614.1 20 6656-. 625.8 l
21 5924 638.2 l- 22_ 5376 639.4 23 4946 631.4 24 -4469- 632.9-l 25 4006- 640.6-26: 3471 672.2
.27 .3078 687
.28 -2768- 692.4
[ 29- 2681 652.9 30; 2111 768.5 l~
i l
l
'*1 ' TAI)LE 4 KEY' CONTAINMENT PARAMETERS CASE 1 GSES 2& 3 j 1.. WETWELL AIRSfACE AND SL'OPRESSION POOL ,
l Wetwell Airspace i 3
Free Volume (FT ) 121,400 121,000 1
1 l
Initial Wetwell Airspace Pressure (PSIA) 14.7 16.1 l
Initial Wetwell Airopace Temperature (*F) 77.5 77.5 Initial Wetwell Airspace Relative Humidity (%) 100 100 Suppression Pool Volume at !!WL (FT ) 92,000 92,000 Initial Suppression Pool Temperature (*F)- 77.5 77.5
- 2. DRYWELL AND VENT SYSTEM Drywell Free Volume (FT 3) 180,000 180,000 l
Initial Drywell Pressure (PSIA) 14.7 16.1 Initial Drywell-Temperature (*F) 135.0 135.0 Initial Drywell Relative l Ilumidity (%) 20.0 20.0 Number of Downcomore 120 120 Inside Diameter of Each l' Downcomer (PT) 1.958 3.958 l
!~ Downcomer Submergence 4.06 4.06 Total Downcomer Loss coefficient-(Including entrance, exit,-turning and friction losses) 5.06 5.06 i
I i
i i
,,_ . ~. _ m.m . .. . _ .~..--.~....m_ -. _ ..__ _ . _ . , _ . ~ . _ _ . . - . . . . _ _ . _ . .___
, a s- e IhDLE.5
SUMMARY
OF PEAK DRYWELL PRESSURES TRACO BREAK FLOW CASES /M3CPT CONTAINMENT MODE 1 PEAK DRYWELL FLOW RATE PRESSURE TIME CASE NO. MULTIPLIER (PSIO) (SEC) 1 1.0- 00.5 9.5-2 1.0 32.9 9.7 3 1.25 38.1 3.0 l
l-I i
l '.
l i
TABLE 6
-COMPARISON OF M3CPT AND CONTEMPT PEAK DRYWELL PRESSURE l
- FLOW RATE CASE MULTIPLIER M3CPT/TRACG CONTEMPT /TRACG 1 -1.0 30.5 psig / 9.5 sec 28.8 psig / 8.9 sec 2 1.0 32.9 peig / 9.7 sec 31.4 pnig /-9.2 sec 3 1.25 38.1 psig / 3.0 sec 36.8 psig / 3.1 sec. ]
l
.i 4
1 i
l j
. e --
IADLE 7 COMPARISON OF RELAPS AND TRACG BLOWDOWN IMPACT ON PEAK DRYWELL PRES $tglg FLOW RATE FLOW RATE.
CASE MULTIPLIER TRACO MULTIPLIER RELAP5 1 1.0 .28.8 psig/8.9 see 1.0 29.6 peig/5.2 occ 2 1.0 31.4 paig/9.2 see 1.0 31.6 psig/5.4 sec l- 3 1.25 38.1 psig/3.0 see 1.3 38.4 poig/5.1 eec t
I }
~'
j.
I 1
1.
L i
i i
-f u
- e i
REACTOR VESSEL REACTOR VESSEL MODEL MODEL TRACO RELAP5 CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT MODEL MODEL M3CPT CONTEMPT i
PEAK DRYWELL PRESSURES FIGURE 1 DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT EVALUATION
.. o 50000 ..
Massi 9 %.
(.lb-lM N
\ N N
O 30
- 0. Timel 9
(. $a cd I-i r
FIGURE 2 l TRACG BEST ESTIMATE DB-LOCA BREAK FLOW RATE l
i
4 1-50000 k
Mass 2 r
[$ct,) \
s K ~
N 0.
Time 2 '
(seq" 1
FIGURE 3 RELAP5 BEST ESTIMATE DB-LOCA BREAK FLOW RATE
.. ,c t
f.
50000
% ' TRACC, -
\(
Massi , Mass 2-
'g
- r. _
e
, RAMPS - ilfLAN O --- N O. Timal , Time 2- 30
.g. r-
-i
-FIGUdB 4 COMPARISON OF RELAP5 AND TRACG BREAK FLOW RATES t
4
., r
.+ 4 O
7
'M .
1l JJ J .J YN bN N
O O
Z C
y-1 Sy D 1 i l
-j 1
L' !
T.
l l' '
C i -
+
t i,ii. .
.O Si s. R L
OISd-3WDSS3Wd FIGURE 5 OYSTER CREEK PRESSURE RESPONSE I
CASE 1 - M3CPT / TRACC
I:
I-i I.2
- =-
~ Vj l t aa aa w&
d=- .
l
. ,R en a
z o
u
-l _: a i 5 U")
i W
r J -
I i
\
l K . - .
.s d d
= R w
O!Sd-39nSS38d FICURE 6 OYSTER CREEK PRESSURE RESPONSE CASE 2 - H3CPT / TRACG
k a + - - A + n - w - - -- - n- e k -
.(
.-- 9
- e> e i
]
i e
a
- l N
f I
' J .J
.. i J i--
- ^
R
(
~
Q-Z O i
.{ . U,g N
I LJ
.E
- / _
Et W
W W
I-
.c
- R
--8 Ol;J-2WGSS99d FIGURI 7 OYSTER CREEK PRESSURE RESPONSE CASE 3 - H3CPT / TRACG
4 I i l i I $
4, ,, _
g
- i x
b o -
-7 -
o ., -
R e' dd i y h 35 5Y ,, ,, .
-a3 Io
\M.
3!
g-
~
h z ja k e
d
[
ad 8 -
), "
a
.8 a
g- . ,, .
8
' i i i i 1 _:
a a on- - a a at 9
. (02141S1 OISd 3W1SS3W FIGUNE 8 OYSTER CREEK PRESSURE RISPONSE CASE 1 - CONTEMPT / TRACG
),
,, e 3 i I I I i $
f
- n g
R N
% au
-m -._ -a , %, .
g e- - a t.u
-- $' 3 a en 5 ,, o Eo
-c-N.
s
- ,, e -
2" o M
y
_ / g ,n d M.
I g - m g
- a. _ a h .
o 8
.- . i- i ,
as - on m a at 9
- n
. -(6t1415) OISd 3HMSS3Md -
FIGURE 9 OYSTER CREEK PRESSURE RESPONSE l-CASE 2_- CONTEMPT / TRACG p
[ ..
~ , .- , , -. . ,-, -
,. s I
r- g
_ o -i -
g N
- _ ~
h <, , . -
g
- n. _
n I i
.J
- .a
_33 , i -
no (E U M-o 'J a f L ,,
gr 1
5 g- -e B
a e
d -
_ .o -
8> a g
8 _ l 8
i I '
I i as a os 2 at 9 as
. (SZ141S) 01Sd 3BnSS38d . .
FIGURE 10 OYSTER CREEK PRESSURE RESPONSE CASE 3 - CONTEMPT / TRACG
y -
. , , i r- y
=,,N , _
i2
.. i .
g
-N 1 8 JJ o o .
-aa
- - a W 3
20 o7 i
S*
- , y g
d 8 -
~ -a k .
c a.
1 I f 1 l
a e e a 9 e a
. (ZZ141S1 DISd 3WISS3HJ l
' FIGURE 11 OYSTER CREEK PRESSURE RESPONSI CASE 1 - CONTEMPT / RELAP5
. 4 ,
h i i j i , ,
[
i o i 5
b n - -u, -
R
~a I ,
_Ja a _
o s, -
f2 CW M
_c3 -
gr
, ye .
ad 8 ~ '
I 5 I i i 1 a a a a a m 9
_ . (EZ141S1 DISd 3HOSS38J FIGURE'12 OYSTER CPEEK PRESSURE RESPONSE CASE 2 - CONTEMPT / RELAP5
_ _ _ _ _ _ . . W
. . . i i y ,
. o a, _
g 5
m
, o _
g r~.
a h if
-aa aa -.
o o n
no
% tu 3 '3 $.
_cj E g
E e
. i 2
}'
l n
g - M 8 _ ..
b n
g bl 8 _
8 4 1 I e a a a a a a a 9
. (hZistS) O!Sd 3EISS38d FIGURE 13 OYSTER CREEK PRESSURE RESPONSE CASE 3 - CONTEMPT / RELAP5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ - - _