bwrog-tp-11-010 (rev.1), 'evaluation of bwr loca analyses … · 2012-12-04 ·...

of 27

0000-0132-1437-R1 Class I

DRF No. 0000-0130-7214 June 2011

BWROG-TP-11-010 (Rev.1)

Evaluation of BWR LOCA Analyses and Margins Against High Burnup Fuel Research Findings

Author and Principal Contributor

Kurshad Muftuoglu (GEH)

Additional Contributors*

Bert Dunn (AREVA) John Blaisdell (Westinghouse)

Principal Verifier RACMC# Chairman

Thomas Stoddard (GEH) Donald Notigan (PSEG / BWROG)

Approving Manager Project Manager

Phil Sharpe (GEH) Mike Iannantuono (GEH / BWROG)

* Concurrence via correspondence # Reload Analysis and Core Management Committee

BWR Owners’ Group


of 27

DISCLAIMER

The only undertakings of the GE - Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) respecting information in this document are contained in the contract between the company receiving this document and GEH. Nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the applicable contract. The use of this information by anyone other than a customer authorized by GEH to have this document, or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, is not authorized. With respect to any unauthorized use, GEH makes no representation or warranty, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy or usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that its use may not infringe privately owned rights.


of 27

Distribution Notice This BWROG report, and associated products, is the property of the BWROG and the utilities that financially participated in its development.

With regard to any unauthorized use, the BWR Owners’ Group makes no warranty, either express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of this guideline or the information, and assumes no liability with respect to its use.

Participating Utilities �

Utility (Members) Utility (Members)

CENG - Nine Mile Point Exelon - Peach Bottom/Limerick

DTE Energy - Fermi FirstEnergy – Perry

Energy Northwest - Columbia NPPD – Cooper

Entergy - FitzPatrick NextEra Energy – DAEC

Entergy - Pilgrim PPL – Susquehanna

Entergy - Vermont Yankee PSEG - Hope Creek

Entergy - River Bend/Grand Gulf Progress Energy – Brunswick

Exelon - Clinton SNC – Hatch

Exelon - Oyster Creek TVA - Browns Ferry

Exelon - Dresden/Quad Cities/LaSalle Xcel Energy – Monticello

International (Members) International (Members)

CHUGOKU - Shimane JAPC - Tsuruga/Tokai

IBERDROLA - Cofrentes Nuclenor - Sta. Maria de Garoña


of 27

Table of Contents

1.� Introduction ..............................................................................................................7�

1.1� Background ..........................................................................................................7�

1.2� Summary of High Burnup Fuel Research Findings .............................................7�

1.3� Objective ..............................................................................................................8�

1.4� Process .................................................................................................................8�

2.� Methodology ............................................................................................................9�

2.1� Approach ..............................................................................................................9�

2.2� Evaluation Method .............................................................................................11�

2.3� BWR Groupings.................................................................................................11�

2.3.1� Group ‘2’ ....................................................................................................11�

2.3.2� Group ‘3’ ....................................................................................................12�

2.3.3� Group ‘4’ ....................................................................................................12�

2.3.4� Group ‘4a’ ..................................................................................................12�

2.3.5� Group ‘5’ ....................................................................................................12�

2.3.6� Group ‘6’ ....................................................................................................12�

3.� Results ....................................................................................................................13�

3.1� Plant Survey Summary ......................................................................................13�

3.2� Group Assessments ............................................................................................13�

3.2.1� Group ‘2’ ....................................................................................................13�

3.2.2� Group ‘3’ ....................................................................................................15�

3.2.3� Group ‘4’ ....................................................................................................16�

3.2.4� Group ‘4a’ ..................................................................................................17�

3.2.5� Group ‘5’ ....................................................................................................17�

3.2.6� Group ‘6’ ....................................................................................................18�

4.� Conclusions ............................................................................................................19�

5.� References ..............................................................................................................19�

Appendix A - Limiting Plant Surveys for Each Group......................................................21�


of 27

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions to the production of this report by:

Fran Bolger (GEH)

Janet Hibbard (AREVA)

Pat Kottas (Westinghouse)

David McBurney (AREVA)

Jeffrey Rambo (GEH)

Curt Robert (GEH)

Robert Schnepp (AREVA)

Phil Sharpe (GEH)

Thomas Stoddard (GEH)

Alisa Trofimova (GEH)


of 27

Abbreviations

10CFR50.46 Code of Federal Regulation Title 10, Part 50, Section 46 ADS Automatic Depressurization System ANL Argonne National Laboratory AOR Analysis of Record BWR Boiling Water Reactor BWROG BWR Owners’ Group CP Cathcart-Pawel CS Core Spray DEG Double-Ended Guillotine (break) ECCS Emergency Core Coolant System ECR Equivalent Cladding Reacted EM Evaluation Model EOL End of Life GE General Electric GEH GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy HPCI High-Pressure Coolant Injection HPCS High-Pressure Core Spray LHGR Linear Heat Generation Rate LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident LPCI Low-Pressure Coolant Injection LPCS Low-Pressure Core Spray MAPLHGR Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission PCT Peak Cladding Temperature PLHGR Peak Linear Heat Generation Rate PQD Post-Quench Ductility PWR Pressurized Water Reactor PWROG PWR Owners’ Group RACMC Reload Analysis and Core Management Committee T/M Thermal-Mechanical TMOL Thermal-Mechanical Operating Limit


of 27

1. Introduction

1.1 Background Following more than 10 years of research in high burnup fuel, in August 2009 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. Part of this rulemaking package was a proposed change in the local oxidation acceptance criteria.Testing at Argonne National Lab (ANL) (Reference 1) showed that the hydrogen concentration in cladding material plays an important role in post quench ductility. To ensure that the current operating fleet could meet potential new criteria, the NRC began the process of gathering plant-specific information related to Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) performance. The Pressurized Water Reactor Owners’ Group (PWROG) and Boiling Water Reactor Owners’ Group (BWROG) proposed performing a survey of plant information. The process for the BWROG involved the fuel suppliers surveying the plant-specific Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) analyses, collecting analyses of record results, and comparing the current results against the research findings. The BWROG approach as documented in this report was to assess the prospects of the BWR fleet to meet the new criteria.

1.2 Summary of High Burnup Fuel Research Findings 10CFR 50.46(b) specifies fuel criteria which ensure that the fuel cladding maintains a degree of post-quench ductility (PQD) during a postulated LOCA. The current criteria, 2200 °F and 17% equivalent cladding reacted (ECR), are based upon ring-compression tests performed on un-irradiated zircaloy specimens. Ten years ago, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research initiated a LOCA research program to investigate potential burnup and alloying effects on the zirconium alloy cladding materials in common usage and potential changes this research may indicate as regards the 10 CFR 50.46(b) criteria. The principle findings of this research program and potential impact to operating plant safety are:

� Peak Cladding Temperature (PCT) Limit: The NRC research program (Reference 1) found no change in 2200 °F peak cladding temperature limit was required.

� Local Oxidation (ECR) Limit: The ANL LOCA Research Program concluded that the current 50.46(b) criterion of 17% ECR is not always adequate to preserve PQD. Hydrogen within the cladding, absorbed during in-reactor steady-state cladding corrosion, tends to reduce the allowable time-at-temperature threshold for PQD.

� Breakaway Oxidation: The NRC research program concluded that a new requirement addressing breakaway oxidation is necessary, which would limit the duration that cladding surface temperature, anywhere on the fuel rod, remains above a certain threshold subjecting it to high temperature steam oxidation.


of 27

As in-core residence time increases, cladding corrosion and hydrogen uptake increases. Figure 1 illustrates the anticipated degradation in embrittlement threshold as a function of cladding hydrogen content. In light of this finding, NRC concluded that the fuel criteria specified within 10 CFR 50.46(b) should be revised to reflect the results from the LOCA research program.

1.3 Objective The objective of this study is to provide an assessment for the United States (U.S.) BWR fleet, indicating the degree of margin to the proposed new criteria. For evaluation purposes, and to have a comparable basis, the limits discussed in Reference 2 are used.

1.4 Process The BWROG conducted a survey of the BWR fleet to determine the prospect for compliance by the fleet, assuming imposition of the proposed new criteria. Working with the PWROG to ensure a consistent and timely response, the following evaluation process was developed to provide this information to the NRC.

1. Compile plant margins of current evaluations for the US BWR nuclear fleet against the proposed criteria, and group the results according to relevant design features (e.g., BWR/2, BWR/3, etc.) and methodologies (e.g., Appendix K, best estimate, fuel vendor).

2. For plant groups for which there is no margin to the proposed criteria, identify conservatisms for each grouping with regard to assumptions, analysis inputs, methodologies (e.g., Appendix K vs. Best-estimate), risk assessments and relevant research data that represent inherent margin.

3. Quantify, to the extent possible, the benefit of conservatisms in terms of LOCA clad oxidation (%ECR), and breakaway oxidation effects.

4. Provide justification for any credits or adjustments needed in demonstration of how the new criteria would be met.

4. Determine if additional analyses or supplemental evaluations are needed to comply with proposed, new criteria.

5. Document and report evaluation results to the NRC through the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).


of 27

2. Methodology

2.1 Approach The evaluation approach is based on assessments of Analysis of Record (AOR) LOCA results. These assessments are accomplished first by grouping the plants, and then by comparing the LOCA results to the criteria. The criterion used for the local oxidation limit is given in Figure 1.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

CP-

ECR

(%)

Hydrogen in Metal (ppm)

Figure 1. Oxidation Limits Used in the Margin Assessment

The hydrogen concentration increases with exposure. Using a hydrogen pickup versus burnup relationship, the oxidation limit can be transformed to a function of exposure. The model used in this evaluation is the FRAPCON3.4 Zircaloy-2 hydrogen pickup correlation (Reference 3). This correlation is compared to the other available models in Figure 2. In the figure, the nominal model and its associated upper-bound and lower-bound curves correspond to the GEH/GNF model used for assessments of reactivity insertion accidents. The nominal GEH/GNF model is based on publicly available Zircaloy-2 data, while the revised FRAPCON model is developed from recent Zircaloy-2 data and is more representative of behavior of the cladding used in current fuel designs, irrespective


of 27

of fuel vendor. For the purposes of this assessment, the nominal FRAPCON model is used. However, use of the nominal GEH/GNF model would not have changed the conclusions of this study.

10

100

1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Hyd

roge

n (p

pm)

Rod Exposure (GWd/MTU)

Step IIStep II segStep I8x8Model (2sUTL)Model (nominal)Model (2sLTL)FRAPCON

Data points from Hayashi, et al., (TOPFUEL-2003)

Figure 2. Zr-2 Hydrogen Pickup versus Burnup Model

Using this transformation, the ECR limits as a function of exposure are depicted in Figure 3. These limits are applied in this current margin assessment.

The margin assessment includes an assumption of doubling the oxidation to account for inside oxidation prior to any rod rupture for the rods with strong pellet-cladding contact. For the purposes of this evaluation, rod exposures equal to and greater than 45 GWd/MT is assumed to have such contact and treated as explained.

The breakaway oxidation criterion is evaluated by determining the duration of rods remaining above the breakaway oxidation threshold temperature. In this evaluation, consistent with Reference 2, the threshold temperature is assumed to be 800°C (1472°F) and the maximum allowed duration above this temperature is assumed to be 5000 seconds.


of 27

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

CP-

ECR

(%)

Rod Exposure (MWD/MTU)

Figure 3. ECR Limits Used in the Assessment

2.2 Evaluation Method In this evaluation, for the cases where a large margin to the new criteria exists, current analysis of record (AOR) oxidation values based on Baker-Just kinetics are used with no additional analysis.Typically, the Baker-Just model is more conservative compared to the Cathcart-Pawel (CP) oxidation model, since it yields higher ECR values at comparable temperatures of interest. If the temperatures are low, the total oxidation predicted by either correlation is also low; the large margins to the limits require no further consideration for differences between the models.

2.3 BWR Groupings In this report, the plants are grouped by physical characteristics (i.e. core size, loop configuration, and ECCS differences). The grouping follows the BWR type classifications.

2.3.1 Group ‘2’

This group consists of BWR/2 units. BWR/2 design employs pumps placed in the external recirculation loops. There are 2 reactors in the U.S. in this category. Compared to the rest of the U.S. fleet, these units do not have jet pumps. Therefore, during a postulated LOCA event, the reactor cores are not reflooded; instead, they are primarily cooled by the core spray (CS). The ECCS of this type of reactor consists of CS and Automatic Depressurization System (ADS).


of 27

2.3.2 Group ‘3’

This group consists of BWR/3 units. There are 6 reactors in the U.S. under this category. This design employs jet pumps. The ECCS of this type of reactor consists of High-Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI), CS, Low-Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI), and ADS. The coolant from LPCI is directed into the recirculation lines downstream of the recirculation pump. Core sizes and ECCS capacities of this group are larger than the ones in Group ‘2’.

2.3.3 Group ‘4’

This group consists of BWR/4 units. There are 15 reactors in the U.S. in this category. For reasons explained below, four BWR/4 units are evaluated separately under Group ‘4a’. The ECCS of the Group ‘4’ type of reactor consists of HPCI, CS, LPCI, and ADS. Three of the units in this group inject LPCI into the core bypass region, similar to the BWR/5 design, however they will not be separated into a special group for the evaluation purposes. Core sizes and ECCS capacities of this group are larger than those in Group ‘3’.

2.3.4 Group ‘4a’

This group consists of BWR/4 units. There are 4 reactors in the U.S. under this category. Similar to the units in Group ‘4’, the ECCS of the units covered under this group also consists of HPCI, CS, LPCI, and ADS. However, a unique configuration of the ECCS in these units is that a limiting single failure can be postulated that results in loss of ADS functionality. Without the ADS, a small break LOCA continues to depress the mixture level in the core until the discharge through the break provides sufficient depressurization for LPCS and LPCI to be delivered to the vessel. Therefore, a larger sized small break becomes the limiting LOCA case. Given the differences in the physical characteristics of these plants and the resulting LOCA response, these four units are evaluated under a separate group.

2.3.5 Group ‘5’

This group consists of BWR/5 units. BWR/5 design is a jet pump plant with LPCI delivered into the core bypass region. There are 4 reactors in the U.S. under this category. The ECCS of this type of reactor consists of High-Pressure Core Spray (HPCS), LPCS, LPCI, and ADS. Core sizes and ECCS capacities of this group are larger than the units in Group ‘4’.

2.3.6 Group ‘6’

This group consists of BWR/6 units. BWR/6 design is a jet pump plant with LPCI delivered into the core bypass region. There are 4 reactors in the U.S. under this category. The ECCS of this type of reactor consists of HPCS, LPCS, LPCI, and ADS. Core sizes and ECCS capacities of this group are larger than the systems noted in Group ‘5’.


of 27

3. Results

3.1 Plant Survey Summary Figure 4 summarizes the distribution of the most limiting oxidation results from the current AOR for the BWR units.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Num

ber

of R

eact

ors

Total ECR � (%)

Group '2'

Group '3'

Group '4a'

Group '4'

Group '5'

Group '6'

Figure 4. Histogram of AOR Oxidation Results

All of the AOR oxidation results summarized in the figure are based on Baker-Just or equivalent correlation with pre-transient oxidation considered, independent of the fuel vendor.

3.2 Group Assessments The group assessments are summarized in the following subsections; the order in which they are presented does not correspond to any particular ranking regarding plant safety.

3.2.1 Group ‘2’

The survey results for Group ‘2’ plants are summarized in Table 1.


of 27

Table 1. Summary of Pertinent Data from Plant Surveys for Group ‘2’ Units

Group/UnitID #

ECRMargin

[% pts]

BreakawayTime

Margin [sec]

G2-U1 3.4 3400G2-U2 2.9 300

The minimum margin to the proposed ECR limit for this group is 2.9 percentage points. The evaluation for this group is done by performing LOCA analyses for different applicable fuel types for each unit at multiple exposure points. The computations are consistent with the current Evaluation Model (EM) applicable to each unit and in compliance with Appendix K requirements excepting the use of Cathcart-Pawel (CP) oxidation kinetics. The exposure points selected for the runs cover a range from fresh fuel up to the burnup values achievable per bundle licensed exposure. At high exposures, the peak linear heat generation rate assumed for the LOCA analysis is limited by Thermal-mechanical (T/M) Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR). Therefore, the runs are carried out at the maximum bundle power set by either the current Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) limit corresponding to AOR or the thermal-mechanical limits. Considering that the peak pin exposure will be greater than the nodal-average exposure, using the Thermal-Mechanical Operating Limit (TMOL) as the Peak Linear Heat Generation Rate (PLHGR) limit introduces a slight conservatism into the evaluation. This treatment is conservative because the actual T/M MAPLHGR, i.e. the average planar LHGR corresponding to the T/M limit, would be lower than the MAPLHGR calculated with this limit.

When comparing the calculated CP-ECR to the proposed limits, the proposed limits for the nodal exposure points are determined by using conservative pin exposure local peaking factors. These factors typically vary from 1.4 at zero exposure to 1.1 at EOL exposure. The most limiting cases are reported for each unit. Figure 5 depicts the results of this study for different fuel types.


of 27

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

CP-

ECR

(%)

Exposure (MWD/MTU)

Limit G2-U1 FT1 G2-U1 FT2 G2-U2 FT1 G2-U2 FT2

Figure 5. CP-ECR Calculation Results for Group ‘2’ Units

The minimum time to breakaway oxidation criteria is 300 seconds. This margin is obtained from the most limiting case consistent with Appendix K assumptions. The time above the threshold temperature vastly improves if nominal decay heat model is used in the computation.

3.2.2 Group ‘3’

The survey results for Group ‘3’ plants are summarized in Table 2. The evaluation for this group takes into account the reduced linear heat generation rate at higher exposures.


Group/UnitID #

ECRMargin

[% pts]

BreakawayTime

Margin [sec]

G3-U1 5 4800

G3-U2 5 4800

G3-U3 8 4850

G3-U4 8 4800

G3-U5 5 4800


of 27

G3-U6 5 4800

The minimum ECR margin for this group is 5 percentage points. This limiting value corresponds to an exposure of 72000 Megawatt-Days per Metric Ton Uranium (MWD/MTU). Since the plant operation is bounded by Thermal-Mechanical Operating Limits (TMOL) at this exposure, the analysis using corresponding radial peaking factors indicate no significant transient oxidation. However, hydrogen pickup at such high burnup results in a reduced limit of 5.4%. It should be noted that, in Table 2, the limiting case and the associated PCT values correspond to the same LOCA scenario at lower exposures where there is a larger margin to the proposed limits.

The longest duration above the threshold temperature for this group is less than 200 seconds. The margin to breakaway oxidation is evaluated as 4800 seconds. Therefore, there is no breakaway oxidation.

No additional adjustment or credits are used in this group’s assessment.

3.2.3 Group ‘4’



Group/UnitID #

ECRMargin

[% pts]

BreakawayTime

Margin [sec]

G4-U1 10 4000

G4-U2 10 4000

G4-U3 12 4900

G4-U4 11 4980

G4-U5 11 4930

G4-U6 11 4920

G4-U7 11 4920

G4-U8 11 5000

G4-U9 10 4920

G4-U10 10 4920

G4-U11 10 4900

G4-U12 10 4900

G4-U13 11 4000

G4-U14 11 4000

G4-U15 12 4900


of 27

The survey results for this group indicate that the minimum margin for oxidation criterion is 10 percentage points. This provides a large margin to the limits.

The margin to breakaway oxidation is evaluated as 4000 seconds. Therefore, there is no breakaway oxidation.


3.2.4 Group ‘4a’

The survey results for Group ‘4a’ plants are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Pertinent Data from Plant Surveys for Group ‘4a’ Units

Group/UnitID #

ECRMargin

[% pts]

BreakawayTime

Margin [sec]

G4a-U1 8.6 4000G4a-U2 8.6 4000G4a-U3 8.6 4000G4a-U4 13 4900

The results for this group show that the minimum margin for oxidation criterion is 8.6 percentage points. This provides a large margin to the limits.



3.2.5 Group ‘5’



Group/UnitID #

ECRMargin

[% pts]

BreakawayTime

Margin [sec]

G5-U1 12 4000G5-U2 11.6 4000G5-U3 11.6 4000G5-U4 13 4980


of 27

The minimum ECR margin from this group is 11.6 percentage points. This provides a large margin to the limits.

The minimum margin to the duration above the threshold temperature is 4000 seconds. Therefore, there is no breakaway oxidation.


3.2.6 Group ‘6’



Group/UnitID #

ECRMargin

[% pts]

BreakawayTime

Margin [sec]

G6-U1 13.2 4900G6-U2 13.2 4900G6-U3 13.2 4900G6-U4 13.2 4900

The results for this group show that the minimum margin for oxidation criterion is 13.2 percentage points. This provides a large margin to the limits.




of 27

4. Conclusions

The results for all U.S. BWRs indicate positive margin to the criteria discussed in Section 2. This is a result of low predicted oxidation combined with relatively low hydrogen concentrations for Zr-2 and due to the inherent margins resulting from the plant design and ECCS systems.

The assessments do not depend on any adjustments or credits other than use of Cathcart-Pawel (CP) oxidation kinetics in some cases. Use of CP kinetics is consistent with the proposed rule.


of 27

5. References

1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Argonne National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-6967, ANL-07/04, “Cladding Embrittlement During Postulated Loss-of-Coolant Accidents,” M. Billone, Y. Yan, T. Burtseva, R. Daum, July 31, 2008 (ML082130389).

2. Elements of Prospective Information Request (ML100960505).

3. K. Geelhood and C. Beyer, “Corrosion and Hydrogen Pickup Modeling in Zirconium Based Alloys,” Paper No. 8145, Proceedings of the 2008 Water Reactor Fuel Performance Meeting,October 19-23, Seoul, Korea (2008).

4. H. Hayashi, et al., “Outside-in Failure of High Burnup BWR Segment Rods Caused by Power Ramp Tests,” Paper No. 114, Proceedings of the 2003 TopFuel Conference, March 16-19, Wurzburg, Germany (2003).


of 27

Appendix A - Limiting Plant Surveys for Each Group

Tables 7 through 12 contain the survey forms for the limiting plant from each group.

BW

RO

G-T

P-11

-010

(Rev

.1)

Page

22

of 2

7

Tab

le 7

. Su

rvey

/Eva

luat

ion

Form

for G

roup

‘2’ L

imiti

ng U

nit

LBLO

CA

Pla

ntG

2-U

2 (G

roup

'2' L

imiti

ng U

nit)

Fuel

Ven

dor:

GN

F

Lice

nsin

g B

asis

Tra

ns.

Lice

nsin

g B

asis

Lice

nsin

g B

asis

Ox

1C

ladd

ing

Fuel

Pin

EM

Typ

eE

MB

urnu

pH

ydro

gen

Allo

wed

Ox

Mar

gin

Ox/

Cas

e P

CT

& C

ase

Ox

1 or

2 S

ided

Latic

eA

pp K

/BE

Ref

eren

ceE

valu

ated

Ox

No

Adj

.%

EC

RF

GW

d/m

tUG

Wd/

mtU

ppm

%%

Adj

ustm

ents

Fille

d in

from

sur

vey

Val

ueTy

peN

/AC

alcu

late

d in

sur

vey

(1):

Eva

luat

ion

is d

one

by re

peat

ing

AO

R c

ases

with

C-P

oxi

datio

n at

pow

er/b

urnu

p le

vels

that

are

ach

ieva

ble

base

d on

ther

mal

/lice

nsin

g lim

its.

SB

LOC

AP

lant

Fuel

Ven

dor:

Valu

e:N/A

Lice

nsin

g B

asis

Bre

akP

CT

Tim

e sp

anLi

cens

ing

BLic

ensi

ng B

EM

Typ

eE

MC

ladd

ing

Bur

nup

Tran

Ox.

Hyd

roge

nA

llow

edO

x M

argi

nR

ange

& ID

abov

e 80

0 C

Tra

n O

xO

x 1

or 2

SA

pp K

/BE

Ref

eren

ceE

valu

ated

at B

U E

val.

Ox

No

Adj

.in

ches

, ft2

Fs

%G

Wd/

mtU

%pp

m%

%D

EG

(2)

< 21

5046

90<

81-

side

dA

pp. K

SA

FER

/CO

RC

LZr

-20

822

179

(2):

For t

he b

reak

away

oxi

datio

n cr

iterio

n, th

e m

ost l

imiti

ng c

ase

is d

oubl

e-en

ded

guill

otin

e (D

EG

) bre

ak.

300

GN

F

Adju

stm

ents

SB

LOC

A:N

ON

E e

xcep

t use

of C

-P in

ana

lysi

s

Mar

gin

to ti

me

abov

e 80

0 C

LB

LOC

AN

ON

E (1

)

G2-

U2

Lice

nsin

g B

asis

C

ase

Bur

nup

16.5

(max

. at h

igh

expo

sure

s)

2150

(max

. at l

ow

exps

oure

s)90

0 - 7

2(n

odal

exp

osur

e)

56 (pin

ex

posu

re)

2-si

ded

(at h

igh

expo

sure

s)15

.32.

9Zr

-210

x10

App

. KS

AFE

R/C

OR

CL


of 27

Table 8. Survey/Evaluation Form for Group ‘3’ Limiting Unit

LBLOCA Plant G3-U1 (Group '3' Limiting Unit) Fuel Vendor: Westinghouse

Licensing Basis Trans. Licensing Basis Licensing Basis Ox 1 Cladding Fuel Pin EM Type EM Burnup Hydrogen Allowed Ox MarginOx/Case PCT & Case Ox 1 or 2 Sided Latice App K/BE Reference Evaluated Ox No Adj.

% ECR F GWd/mtU GWd/mtU ppm % %

AdjustmentsFilled in from survey Value Type

N/ACalculated in survey

SBLOCA Plant Fuel Vendor:

Value:N/A

Licensing Basis Break PCT Time span Licensing BLicensing BEM Type EM Cladding Burnup Tran Ox. Hydrogen Allowed Ox MarginRange & ID above 800 C Tran Ox Ox 1 or 2 SApp K/BE Reference Evaluated at BU Eval. Ox No Adj.

inches, ft2 F s % GWd/mtU % ppm % %0.15 < 1500 < 200 < 2.0 2-sided App. K 2004 USA5 Zr-2 72 0 461 5.4 >5

4800

AdjustmentsSBLOCA:NONE

Margin to time above 800 C

LBLOCANONE except use of C-P in evaluation

G3-U1 Westinghouse

72 461 5.4 >5

Licensing Basis Case Burnup

< 7.01.0DEG

21501.0DEG 2-sided Zr-2 10x10 App. K 2004 USA5 0


of 27


LBLOCA Plant Group 4 Fuel�Vendor: AREVA

Licensing�Basis�Trans.� Licensing�Basis Licensing�Basis�Cladding Fuel�Pin EM�Type EM Burnup Hydrogen Allowed Ox�MarginOx/Case �PCT�&�Case Ox�1�or�2�Sided Latice App�K/BE Reference Evaluated Ox No�Adj.

%�ECR F GWd/mtU GWd/mtU ppm % %

AdjustmentsFilled�in�from�survey Value Type

Calculated�in�survey


Value:


inches, ft2 F s % GWd/mtU % ppm % %10

4000

12.6


�LBLOCA

AdjustmentsSBLOCA:

10.062 1601.3 1904 1 Zr-2

The calculations for this plant cover both large and small breaks. The reported margin is the same as given above.


10x10 Appendix KANP-2625(P)ANP-2624(P)

Revision 20��62


of 27

Table 10. Survey/Evaluation Form for Group ‘4a’ Limiting Unit

LBLOCA Plant Group 4a Fuel�Vendor: AREVA

Licensing�Basis�Trans.� Licensing�BasiLicensing�Basis Cladding Fuel�Pin EM�Type EM Burnup Hydrogen Allowed Ox�MarginOx/Case �PCT�&�Case Ox�1�or�2�Sided Latice App�K/BE Reference Evaluated Ox No�Adj.


AdjustmentsFilled�in�from�survey Value Type



Value:


inches, ft2 F s % GWd/mtU % ppm % %8.6

4000

12.6


�LBLOCA

AdjustmentsSBLOCA:

8.662 1602.0 1992 1 Zr-2



10x10 Appendix KANP-2908(P)ANP-2910(P)

Revision 10��62


of 27


LBLOCA Plant Group 5 Fuel�Vendor: AREVA

Licensing�Basis�Trans.� Licensing�BasiLicensing�BCladding Fuel�Pin EM�Type EM Burnup Hydrogen Allowed Ox�MarginOx/Case �PCT�&�Case Ox�1�or�2�Sided Latice App�K/BE Reference Evaluated Ox No�Adj.


AdjustmenFilled�in�from�survey Value Type



Value:


inches, ft2 F s % GWd/mtU % ppm % %11.6

4000

12.6


�LBLOCA

AdjustmentsSBLOCA:

11.662 1600.5 1729 1 Zr-2



10x10 Appendix K EMF-3230(P)EMF-3231(P) 0��62


of 27


LBLOCA Plant G6-U2 (Group '6' Limiting Unit) Fuel Vendor: GNF

Licensing Basis Trans. Licensing Basis Licensing Basis Ox 1 Cladding Fuel Pin EM Type EM Burnup Hydrogen Allowed Ox MarginOx/Case PCT & Case Ox 1 or 2 Sided Latice App K/BE Reference Evaluated Ox No Adj.

% ECR F GWd/mtU GWd/mtU ppm % %

AdjustmentsFilled in from survey Value Type

Calculated in survey


Value:


inches, ft2 F s % GWd/mtU % ppm % %DEG (1) 1760 < 100 2 2-sided App. K SAFER Zr-2 62 0 158 13.2 13.2

(1): For the breakaway oxidation criterion, the most limiting case is double-ended guillotine (DEG) break. 4900

AdjustmentsSBLOCA:


LBLOCA

G6-U2 GNF

62 158 13.2 13.2


2.0 1760 2-sided Zr-2 10x10 App. K SAFER 14.6

bwrog-tp-11-010 (rev.1), 'evaluation of bwr loca analyses … · 2012-12-04 ·...

Documents