ML17206A512
| ML17206A512 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1978 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811160107 | |
| Download: ML17206A512 (29) | |
Text
C REGULATOFY INFOEQ4ATION DXSTRIBUTION YSTEM DOCKET NBR:,50-335 RECIPIENT-REID R.
ORIGINATOR-UHRX DOC DATE:
781109 ACCESSION NBR: 7811160107 COPIES RECEIVED-COMPANY 'L PWR Sr SUBJECT-Forwards corrected value f Performance anal sis.
An linear heat rate of 14.8 W
re erroneous values.
LTR SIZE:
ENCL ENCL'ISTRTRUTION'COOE f
AOOI NOTARXZEDI STRTRUT ION TITLE !
GFNERAL DJSTRIBUTION FOR AFTER ISSUANCE OF OPERATING LICENSE NANE FOR ACTXON REG FIL AR I
8 E
OELD HANAUER
, CORF PERFORMANCE RR AO FOR SYS L
PRQJ ENGINFERING HR
, REACTnp SAFFTY BR I PL4NT SYSTEMS Hre i EEB
. EFFLUENT TREAT SYS
, J HCGOUGH LPDR TERA NSIC ACRS
. h 7
ENCL V/ENC
/ENCL H/P.
ENCL l.TR ONLY N/ENCL
~/ENCL 4t/ENCL lq/ENCL W/ENCL I/ETC(
H/ENCL H/ENCL pl/ENCL 4/ENCL a'/ENCL 4/ENCL
~'/1b ENCL a
ORBI4 BC TOT AL NUMBER QF COPIES REQUIRE0i LTR ENCL l-goya 4
NOTES:
~~
'N h
~\\
A
t
'P ~
yklVig~
P> m~~
FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ~
Attention:
Mr. R.
W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch I4 Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 November 9, 1978 L-78-356
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re:
St. Lucie Unit 1, Docket No.
50-335 ECCS Per formance Resul ts
~i
~
~ ~
~
~
During a review of ECCS parameters, which was conducted as part of the Cycle 3 reload safety analysis, it was determined that an incorrect containment spray flow rate was used in the St. Lucie ECCS analysis.
A description of this occurrence is cont:ained in Reportable Occurrence Report 335-78-38 (attache'd).
The purpose of this letter is to submit
'Ehe results of an ECCS performance analysis for St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 2, in which the correct value of containment spray flow rate has been used.
The analysis supports continued operation of the unit at a peak linear heat rate of 14.8 kw/ft.
Very truly yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President REU/MAS/cpc Attachments cc:
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Region II Harold F. Reis, Esquire 7g//jÃ~io'7 PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE
I l,"
h l
~
II t (
+
'I '
A A
g e ~
t
< vl r">~ ~
I
iik
~
~
~
Leva FLORIDA POIVEA 5 UGkkT CoiMPAiNY RN-LI-78-29 1 October 5, 1978 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director, Region XX Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reil3y:
REPORTABLE OCCURRENCE 335-78-38 ST.
LUCXE UNXT 1 DATE OF OCCURRENCE:
SEPTEMBER 2S, 1978 ECCS ANALYSIS The attached Licensee Event Report is being submitted in accordance with Technical Specification 6.9 to provide prompt notification of the subject occurrence.
Very truly yours, c
4'cali;-~'+D.
SchrrXdt Vice President Power Resources NAK/dlh Attachment CC Harold F. Reis,, Esquire Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement (40)
Director, Office of Management Information and Program Control (3) k"c";O>LC... Sc:ilVkNG PEOPLL
~
NRC FQRIVI 368 P.TTI LlCEINSE:" EVEIXT REPORT U.*NVCI.SAARSGVLATQAy~AAIISSICN
~oI 3
CQN'T
~O 0
I 2
'Q (PI.SASK PRINT QR TYPe Af I R(QVIBSQ INPQRAATIQNI I
IIQ I
I-I I >>
I I
I II Ql~ll lQ~IQ I 'C"=VSci Cooi I.lo<<38$ 3 IVUMdiA 1$
JI UC34$ <<TYPS 10 Si
'O'
' 'O~I' 'O~l" 0
$0 61 OOCI4KTNUAtSSA
$3
$3 iyivTOATS ll IS A~JCRT OA-.S
$0 SVSNT QSSCRIPTIQN '"IQ PRQ8ABl - CQNSKCURICKS QIO Durin review of the ECCS parameters for the Cycle 3 reload safety
~03 anal sis it was determinded that an error had been made in the input to the St. Lucie ECCS anal sis concerning the containment spray flow rate,
~o tsi The NSSS vendor erformed a reanalysis for Cycle 2 using the corrected spray pump flow.
The reanalysis on this item confirms that St. Lucie 1 does no t exceed the Appendix K limit.
013 1
S 9
Ia SVSTS'4l CAUS@
CAUS3
- COUP, yAUy<<
COO Z C 09 S'USCCOS CCIPPOv &4T COOS
$4C~OO<<
SV4 O'
9 la II I'1 l3 IS 19 SZCVSNTIAt OCCVARiivC.
ASPOAT tKVISION OII f<<I I 1~71 8
~
~<>
31 0
~~
~01 1
'~~?
~
~0<<
11 12 '1 14 1$
21 IS 19 30, I
31 ACTICN
<<VTJR<<
- iPPSC, SitVTOCt<<N ATTACItMSNT 4PRCPA
)olMPC UP CCUPCNSNT TAKEN AC lov CvPMvT NCTNOO HOURS 22 sv3<< tITso poa'41 >vs.
svppt liA ctAvupAOTUR<<R L<<SLJS I 0 ILIQ I J'>>
I Mo I'IS I'IS 13 34 3I 41 41 44 CAUS-Q-S RIP IQ,I NQCQRRSC Iv}SAC IQNS Q2 o
The ca se of the incorrectl assumed CSP flow rate was due to ambi uous data supplied by the AE.
Lle have reviewed the ECCS parameters for the Cvcle 2 reload safety analysis to ensure that all input to the analvsis is correct.
An amendment to the Cycle 2
HCCS analysis sTill b 3
9 PACltJ.Y STA Tt TS OTNSB STA IUS Q NA At<<TNCO CP CISCoycRV OISCOViAVCSSCRtPTI N Q<<2 Q
SPECXAL XNVESTXGATXON OHLJS
' 'SI~
2 3
3 IS ACTIVITY C vri i.
RioiASco CP >B.SASS
~Il6 Q33 QZ~QSA T
I ~
P<<RSONNCI S}IPCSVRSS CmE 0'0I I I IZ t3 PSASCNN31. I:iio3161
'vUIPIISA SES RIPITCNQ IJ} I 010 I N}t AINOUNTCP ACUITY Q36 NA
'.CCATIOIIOP ASI.~S ~36 NA 44 4$
submvtted in the near future.
t 11 I2 SSOP CR OAIPACS,O PACII ~Q I P (Q42 PVSI.IC:<<
'SSVSO SSCPIPT:CN Qd IN I/O Ia
'4AA:
"P PRSPARSR NA NA H. A. Schoppman pvQNe 10 NAC~ CNI y t tel I f
/
I I
da Ia 305) 552-3802
REPORTABLE OCCURRENCE 335-78-38 LICENSEE -EVENT REPORT PAGE TWO ADDXTXONAL EVEiNT DESCRIPTION During review of the ECCS paxameters for the Cycle 3 reload safety-analysis, it was detexmined that an error had been made in the input to the St. Lucie ECCS analysis concerning the containment spray flow rate.
The flow rate used was the value for 1 pump, not the required 2-pump flow rate.
To evaluate the impact of this error, an analysis was performed for Cycle 2 by the NSSS vendor using the corrected spray pump flow.
- Whereas, the prior ECCS analyses has used reflood heat transfer coefficients dexived from COHPRERC-XX based upon spray pump flow of 3375 gpm and a Peak 1 inear Heat Generation Rate (PLHGR) of 17.0 kw/ft, the new analysis used xeflood heat transfer coefficients based on a spray pump flow of 6750 gpm and the current PLHGR Technical Specification limit of 14.8 'kw/ft.
Xn each case the Peak Clad Temperature
{PCT) was determined using STRXKIN-XX with a PLHGR of 14.8 kw/ft and the respective reflood heat transfer coeffici-ents.
The incxease in reflood heat txansfer coefficients resulting from the reduction in PLHGR from 17.0 to 14.8 kw/ft more than offset any decrease in heat txansfer coefficients due to the doubling of spray pump flow.
As a result the PCT calculated by STRIKXN-IX decreased from the value of 2035 P determined for Cycle 2 to a revised value of 2022 P
0 0
This completes the renalysis on this item and confirms that St. Lucie 1 does not exceed the Appendiv K limit.
St. Lucie 1 Cycle 2
ECCS Performance Performance Results (Revision 1, October 5, 1978) 1..0 Introduction and Su+oar Reference 1 presents the ECCS performance analysis performed for St. Lucie 1, Cycle 2.
This report presents a supplementary analysis performers to assess the impact of an increase in containment spray flow on ECCS yerfor-mance.
The results of this supplementary evaluation support continued operation of St. Lucie 1 at a peak linear heat generation rate (PLKR) of 14.8 kw/ft and demonstrate compliance viith the NRC Acceptance'riteria The method of analysis and detailed results are presented in the fo'Ilowing sections
- 2. 0 Hethod of Anal s is, The analysis presented in Reference 1
was performed with a total contain-ment spray flov> of 3375 gpm.
This supplementary analysis vias performed with an increased total containment spray of 6750 gpm.
The method of analysis utilized the CE Large Break Evaluation Model described in Ref-erence 3.
The evaluation vias performed-for the limiting break, the 0.8 DES/PD*, defined in Reference l.
The increase in containment spray flow does not affect the blowdovin transient so no new blowdovin calculations'~ere performed.
The increase in total containment spray flow does affect the containment pressure during the reflood transient, however.
To evaluate the effect of the increase in
- DES/PD = Double Ended Slot in Pump Discharge
'I
~ ~
Revision 1
10/5/78 Page 2 of 17 containment spray flow on ECCS performance, a new COt)PERC-II 'efill-(g) reflood hydraulics calculation was performed.
The results were then used to generate new refill-reflood heat transfer coefficients.
The STRIKIH-II hot rod transient calculation was then performed using the. newly generated refill-reflood heat transfer coe ficients to identify the hot rod clad temperature response.
3.0
. ResuIts The increased containment spray flow resulted in a containment pressure approximately 2 psi lower than that of the Reference 1 analysis at the time of the peak. clad temperature.'he time of'eak clad temperature occurs-at about-250 seconds.
The Reference 1 analysis employed the COt/PERC-II refill reflood analysis reported in Reference 6.
In this analysis the. reflood period is described by three reflood rates.
For the Reference 1 analysis and this new supplementary evaluation, the fi'rst two reflood rates remained the same since the containment back pressure is essentially the same during this time period.
The new third reflood rate was reduced since the increased containment spray flow reduced the containment pressure during the time period associated with the third reflood rate.
The new containment t
pressure response is shown in Figure 1 along with the Reference 1 response
Revision
)
10/5/>8 Page 3 of 17 for comparison.
Figure 2 compares the resulting reflood mass added responses and defines the associated reflood rates.
The results of this analysis as compared to the Reference 1 analysis are presented in Table 1.
Despite the decrease in containment pressure and third reflood rate, the clad temperature was calculated to be lower in this supplementary analysis.
The explanation for these results are discussed in section 4.0 of this report.
Table 2 presents a list of the significant parameters displayed graphically for the 0.8 DES/PD break.
4.0 Evaluation of Results In the Reference 1 analysis, the hot rod refill-reflood heat transfer coefficients calculated by the COi<PERC-II code and used in the STRIKIi'i-II temperature
- code, v]ere generated at the very conservative PLHGR of 17.0 kw/ft.
These con-servative refill-reflood heat transfer coefficients were originally generated in. the ECCS performance evaluation presented in Reference 6.
In performing the re-evaluation presented herein, the refill-reflood heat transfer coefficients Mere generated at the cycle 2
PLHGR limit of 14.8 kw/ft.
The use of the lower PLHGR resu'lted, in a lower peak clad temperature (2022 F vs'035 F of Table, 1) for this re-evaluation since the improved heat transfer realized during the first two reflood rates more than compensated for the potential detrimental effects of the lower third reflood rate.
Revision 1
10/5I78 Page 4 of D 5.0 Com uter Code Version Identification The following versions of the Combustion Engineering ECCS Evaluation Hodel computer codes were used in this analysis:
COMPERC-II:
Version No. 75097 STRIKIN-II:
- Version No. 76234
I
'I l
Revision 1
10/5/78 Page 5 of 1?
K 6.0 References 1.
Reload Safety Evaluation. Attachment 2 to FP8L letter Nc. L-78-99 of March 22, 1978, subject:
Proposed Amendment to Facility Opera-ting License DPR-6?
(Docket No. 50-335).
2.
Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Mater Cooled. Nuclear Power Reactors, Federal
- Register, Vol. 39, No. 3, Friday, Jan'uary 4, 1974.
3.
CENPD-132, "Calculative Methods for the CE Large Break LOCA Evaluation Mode1", August 1974 (Proprietary}.
4 CEHPD-132, Supplement 1, "Updated Calculative Methods for the CE Large Break LOCA Evaluation Model", December 1974 (Proprietary).
4.
CEHPD-I34, "COMPERC-II, A Program for Emergency Refill-Reflood
'f Core", April 1974 (Proprietary).
CEHPD-134, Supplement 1,
"COMPERC-II, A Program for Emergency Refill-Reflood of the Core (Modification}", December 1974 (Proprietary).
5.
CENPD-135, "STRIKIN-II, A Cylindrical Geometry Fuel Rod Heat II Tran sfer Program, April 1974 (Propri e tary).
CENPD-135, Supplement 2, "STRIKIN-II, A Cylindrical Geometry Fuel Rod Heat Transfer Program (Modification)", February 1975 (Proprietary).
CENPD-135, Supplement 0, "STRIKING-II, A Cylindrical Geometry Fuel Rod Heat Transfer Program", August 1976 (Proprietary).
6.
St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (formerly Hutchinson Island) Unit 1, Final Safety Analysis Report in Support of Docket No. 50-335 License Ho. DPR-67.
0 10/5/7.8 Page 6 of ly Table 1
St. Lucie I ECCS Performance Results arith Increased Containment Spray Flow Reference Cycle 2 Reanalysis With Resul ts Imcreased Containment S ra Floe Break size, Peak Clad Temperature, F
Peak Local Clad Oxidation, /
A
'Core-Hide Clad Oxidation; /
Hot Rod Rupture Time, sec.
0.8 DES/PD 2035 12.0
<.63 0-8 DES/PD 2022'2.0
<.63
- 55. l
Revision 1
10/5I78 Page 7 of 17 Table 2 Yariables Plotted as a Function of Time Vari ab 1 e
~Fi ure No.
Containment Pressure Mass Added to Core During Reflood Peak Clad Temperature Mater Level in Downcomer During Reflood
~'ap Conductance Local Clad Oxidation Clad Temperature; Centerline Fuel Temperature, Average Fuel Temperature and Coolant Temperature for Hottest Node Hot Spot Heat Transfer Coefficient Hot Rod Internal Gas Pressure Combined Spillage and Spray into Containment 10
FI60RE j.
ST LUCIE I CYCLE 2 WITH INCREASED CONTAIHf']EHT SPRAY FLOH,-
CONTAIilf'lENT PRESSURE Revision 1
10/5/78 Page 8 of 17 REFEREI'ICE l. ANALYSIS RE-AiIALYSIS
. CO.O00 50<<000
" 40<<000 u2 30 <<000 QJ D '0 <<000 10 <<000 0<<000 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD cd CD CD It CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD LA TIflE AFTER BREA/',
SEC
'10/5/78 Page 9
of 17 FIGURE 2 ST LUCIE'I CYCLE. 2 WITH INCREASED CONTAINr]ENT SPRAY FLOh, BASS ADDED TO CORE DURING REFLOOD 3.2.0000>>
=---"--"'=. REFERENCE 1 ANALYSIS RE-ANALYSIS 100000>>
80000>>
UJ
'60000>>
UJ 40000.,
?0000 It'1E SEC)
- 0. 0 7.5 7,5 66,0 66,0 Ll00, 0 REFERENCE j.
3,2S IN/SEC 1.21 IN/SEC 0,72 IN/SEC RE-AWLYSIS 5.25 IH/SEC 1.21 IN/SEC 0.68 IN/SEC 0>>
CD CD fD CD CD Ol CD CO C)
CD K
C)
CD cd CD CDll CD CD CD CD
, TIf'lE AFTER CONTACT, SEC
2.2.0 0 FIGURE 3
II fH
+REASED CONTAIHi'lENT SPRA'+LOl'I, PEAK CLAD TENPEBATU<<HE
<<10/5/78 Page l0 of T7 2.00 0 j 800' 600 3.400
- =j 2.00
~ F000 800 600 400 0
j.00
?00 300 400
, TIf<E,. SECONDS 500 600
~ I ~
FIGURE 0 ST LUCIE I'YCLE 2 HITH
- INCREASED CONTAIl'tfLENT SPRAY FLO',t HATER LEVEL IN Do),'NCOr]ER DURING REFLOOD Revision 1
10/5/78 Page 11 of 17 3.S ~00.0 15>>000
. 3.2.~000 3~000 l6~000 3~000 0 i,000 CD CD H
CD CD CD IC CD CD CD CD
~l CD CD nJ CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 1
TIf1E AFTER CONTACT, SEC 5
~
.~
FIGURE 6 ST LUCIE I CYCLE 2 HITH JNCHEASEO CONTAtNl3ENT SPRAY fLO<l, LOCAL CLAD. OXI33NIOtl.
'evision 1
10/5/78 Page 13 of 17 100 300 400 500 800 70(
- TINE, SECOi'JDS
'I wW-~. T$ >>
U 1,
~ ~
I=I60RE 5 ST LUCIE I CYCLE 2 IlITII INCREASED CONTAINNENT SPRAY FLOH, HOT SPOT GAP CONDUCTANCE Revision 1
10/5/78 Page 12 of 12 j 400
.'1 000
" 800 6
600 400 0
3.0 0 2.0 0 300 400
- TIHE, SECONDS 500 600 7Qt
0
~
4 M
,e ~
4000 Revision 1.
10/5/78 Page 10 of 17 F160RE 7
- ST LUCIE I CY.CLE 2 NITH INCREASED CONTAINNENT SPRAY FLOt't; CLAD TEHPERATURE.
CENTERLINE FUEL TEf'1PERATURE, WERAGE FUEL TEflPERATURE AND COOLANT TB3PERATURF FOB HOTTEST NODE 3500 3.000 Z.500 FUEL CENTERLINE 2.000
>500 AVERAGE FUEL j 000 500 COOLANT 0
j00 2.0 0 300
~i 00 500 BQO
+80 ST LllCIE I CYCLE 2 ITll.
INCREASED CONTAIill'iENT SPRAY FLOH, HOT SPOT HEZT TRMSFER COEFFICIENT 10/5/7" page tS of >7 3 2.0 gQQ 80
$ 0 2.0 0
0 100 2.0 0 300 400 V'YP.1I nr nnatar 600
~
I
~
~
W
~I
~
~
o FIGURE 9 ST LUCIE I CYCLE 2 WITH INCREASED CONTAIN'i'lEflT SPRAY FLOW, HOT ROD Il'JTERis'AL GAS PRESSURE Revision 1
10/5/78 Page 16 of 17.
j.200 3.000 INITIAL RUPTURE = 55,l sEc 600 200 0
0 20 00 60 TIf'lE, SECONDS 80
FIGURE 10 ST LUCIE I CYCLE 2 HITl-l INCREASED CONTAINS"'IENT SPRAY FLOH, COI"'lBINED.SPILLAGE AND SPRAY FLOH I HTO CONTAI Nf"'1EHT Revision t
10/5/78 Page
>7 of 17 12000'1000 10000 1 TANK SPILLING DIRECTLY INTO CONTAINf'lENT 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 f000 3000
. EFFECTIVE ANIIULUS SPILLAGE pEFFECTIVE PUNP SPILLAGE SPRAY FLOH 2000 1000 0
clO 80 120 160 200 24~0 280 320 '60 E)00 TIr>E FRO"> I:REAK, SEC
I 0
'4I'~