ML20214Q200

From kanterella
Revision as of 22:16, 18 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Errata & Addenda to LOCA Analysis Rept for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
ML20214Q200
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 08/31/1986
From:
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20214Q102 List:
References
77NED148, NEDO-21696-ERR, NEDO-21696-ERR-04, NEDO-21696-ERR-4, NUDOCS 8706040280
Download: ML20214Q200 (8)


Text

-

1 NUCLEAR ENERdY SUSINESS OPER ATl!NS e GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN JOSE CAUFORNIA 96125 GENER AL $ ELECTRIC APM.lCA8LE TO:

PutuCATioN No.

"E -216<>6 77NED148 ERRATA And ADDENDA T. i. E. =0.

ET TITu TASS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT g_ 4 ANALYSIS REPORT 70R PILCRIM August 1986 OATE NUPTIAR POWER STATION AUGUST 1977 Nom Cms #ewimo% app # cable issut DATE publication a specified below.

REFERENCES INSTRUCTIONS ITEM ($EcTION. PAG E PA A AG R APH. UN E) (CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS)

1. Page iv Replace with new page iv
2. Page 3-1 Replace with new page 3-1 -
3. Page 4-3 Replace with new page 4-3
4. Page 4-13 Add new page 4-13
5. Page A-7 Replace with new page A-7 Note: Changes are indicated by a vertical bar in the right-hand margin. -

~~.

e t

~

8706040280 870522 PDR ADOCK 05000293 PDR P

PAGE I Of 1

, NEDO-21696 .

9

't TABLE OF CONTENTS

.E* E *.

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. LEAD PLANT SELECTION 2-1
3. INPUT TO ANALYSIS 3-1
4. LOCA ANALYSIS COMPUTER CODES 4-1 4.1 Results of the LAMB Analysis 4-1 4.2 Results of the SCAT Analysis 4-1 4.3 Results of the SAFE Analysis 4-1 4.4 Results of REFLOOD Analysis 4-2 4.5 Results of the CHASTE Analysis 4-3 4.6 Methods 4-4
5. DESCRIP* ION OF MODEL AND INPUT CHANGES 5-1
6. CONCLUSIONS 6-1
7. REFERENCES 7-1

, APPENDIX A - Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis with A-1 No Core Spray Heat Transfer Credit iii

NEDO-21696 LIST OF TABLES #

Table Title Page 1 Significant Input Parameters to the Loss-of-Coolant Accident 3-1 2 Summary of Break Spectrum Results 4-5 3 LOCA Analysis Figure Summary - Non-Lead Plant 4-6 4A MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure 4-7 4B MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure 4-8 4C MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure 4-9 4D MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure 4-10 4E MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure 4-11 4F MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure 4-12 4G MAPLHGR Versus Average Planar Exposure 4-13 l l

l iv

i NEDO-21696 8

r

3. INPUT TO ANALYSIS A list of the significant plant input parameters to the LOCA analysis is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 SIGNIFICANT INPUT PARAMETERS TO THE LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Plant Parameters:

Core Thermal Power 2037 MWe, which corresponds to 102% of rated core power Vessel Steam Output 8.14 x 106 lbm/h, which corre-sponds to 102% of rated core power ,

VesselSteamDome'kressure 1050 psia Recirculation Line Break 4.34 ft2 (DBA)

Area for Large Breaks - Suction Number of Drilled Bundles 428 Fuel Parameters:

Peak Technical Initial l

Specification Design Minimum Linear Heat Axial Critical i

Fuel Bundle Generation Rate Peaking Power Fuel Type Geometry (kW/ft) Factor Ratio

  • A. 8DB219L 8x8 13.4 1.5 1.24 l B. 8DB219H 8x8 13.4 1.5 1.24 C. 8DB262 8x8 13.4 1.5 1.24 D. P8DRB265L 8x8 13.4 1.5 1.24 E. P8DRB282 8x8 13.4 1.5 1.24 F. P8DRB265H 8x8 13.4 1.5 1.24 G. BP8DRB300 8x8 13.4 1.5 1.24 l

\ *To account for the 2% uncertainty in bundle power required by Appendix K, the SCAT calculation is performed with an MCPR of 1.22 (i.e., 1.24 divided by 1.02) for a bundle with an initial MCPR of 1.24.

3-1

t NEDO-21696

u 4.5 RESULTS OF THE CHASTE ANALYSIS This code is used, with suitable inputs from the other codes, to calculate the fuel cladding heatup rate, peak cladding temperature, peak local cladding oxidation, and core-wide metal-water reaction for large breaks. The detailed fuel model in CHASTE considers transient gap conductance, clad swelling and rupture, and metal-water reaction. . The empirical core spray heat transfer and channel wetting correlations are built into CHASTE, which solves the transient heat transfer equations for the entire LOCA transient at a single axial plane in a single fuel assembly. Iterative applications of CHASTE determine the maximum permissible planar power where required to satisfy the requirements of 10CFR50.46 accept,ance criteria.

The CHASTE results presented are:

o Peak Cladding Temperature versus time e Peak Cladding Temperature versus Break Area e Peak Cladding Temperature and Peak Local Oxidation versus Planar Average Exposure for the most limiting break size o Maximum Average Planar Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) versus Planar Average Exposure for the most limiting break size A summary of the analytical results is given in Table 2. Table 3 lists the figures provided for this analysis. The MAPLHGR values for each fuel type in the Pilgrim core are presented in Tables 4A through 4G.

l 4-3

NEDO-21696-t 4.6 METHODS 4 In the following sections, it will be useful to refer to the methods used to analyze DBA, large breaks, and small breaks. For jet pump reactors, these are defined as follows: ,

a. DBA Methods. LAMB / SCAT / SAFE /DBA-REFLOOD/ CHASTE. Lreak size: DBA.
b. Large Break Methods (LBM). LAMB / SCAT / SAFE /non-DBA REFLOOD/ CHASTE.

Break sizes: 1.0 ft2 < A < DBA.

c. Small Break Methods (SBM). SAFE /non-DBA REFLOOD. Heat transfer coefficients: nucleate boiling prior to core uncovery, 25 Btu /hr-f t 2 *F after recovery, core spray when appropriate. Peak cladding tenperature and peak local oxidation are calculated in non-DBA-REFLOOD. Break sizes: A < 1.0 ft2, 4

l 1

l 1

1 4-4

', NEDO-21696 u

Table 4G MAPLHGR VERSUS AVERAGE PLANAR EXPOSURE Plant: Pilgrim Fuel Type: BP8DRB300 Average Planar Exposure MAPLHGR PCT 0xidation (GWd/MT) (GWd/ST) (kW/ft) (*F) Fraction 0.22 0.2 10.9 2045. 0.018 1.1 1.0 11.0 2038. 0.017

.5.5 5.0 11.4 2041. 0.016 11.0 10.0 12.0 2100. 0.020 16.5 15.0 12.3 2140. 0.022 22.0 20.0 12.1 2134. 0.022 27.6 25.0 11.5 2047. 0.017 38.6 35.0 10.3 1854. 0.008 49.6 45.0 9.1 1704. 0.005 l

l 4-13 i

s NEDO-21696

' f, Table A-3 MAPLHGR Multipliers Assuming No Core Spray Heat Transfer Credit Fuel Type Core Flow > 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 BP8DRB300 0.90 0.82 l Table A-4

SUMMARY

OF BREAK SPECTRUM RESULTS(1 e Break Size Core-Wide e Location Peak Local Metal-Water e Sinale Failure PCT ('F) Oxidation (%) Reaction (%)

e 4.34 ft2 2200 2.5 0.17 e Recire Suction e LPCI Injection Valve i

(1)With no core spray heat transfer credit.

A-7