Application of MELCOR Code to a French PWR 900 MWe Severe Accident Sequence and Evaluation of Models Performance Focusing on In-Vessel Thermal Hydraulic Results

In the ambit of the Severe Accident Network of Excellence Project (SARNET), funded by the European Union, 6^th FISA (Fission Safety) Programme, one of the main tasks is the development and validation of the European Accident Source Term Evaluation Code (ASTEC Code). One of the reference codes used to compare ASTEC results, coming from experimental and Reactor Plant applications, is MELCOR. ENEA is a SARNET member and also an ASTEC and MELCOR user. During the first 18 months of this project, we performed a series of MELCOR and ASTEC calculations referring to a French PWR 900 MWe and to the accident sequence of “Loss of Steam Generator (SG) Feedwater” (known as H2 sequence in the French classification). H2 is an accident sequence substantially equivalent to a Station Blackout scenario, like a TMLB accident, with the only difference that in H2 sequence the scram is forced to occur with a delay of 28 seconds. The main events during the accident sequence are a loss of normal and auxiliary SG feedwater (0 s), followed by a scram when the water level in SG is equal or less than 0.7 m (after 28 seconds). There is also a main coolant pumps trip when ΔT_sat < 10 °C, a total opening of the three relief valves when T_ric (core maximal outlet temperature) is above 603 K (330 °C) and accumulators isolation when primary pressure goes below 1.5 MPa (15 bar). Among many other points, it is worth noting that this was the first time that a MELCOR 1.8.5 input deck was available for a French PWR 900. The main ENEA effort in this period was devoted to prepare the MELCOR input deck using the code version v.1.8.5 (build QZ Oct 2000 with the latest patch 185003 Oct 2001). The input deck, completely new, was prepared taking into account structure, data and same conditions as those found inside ASTEC input decks. The main goal of the work presented in this paper is to put in evidence where and when MELCOR provides good enough results and why, in some cases mainly referring to its specific models (candling, corium pool behaviour, etc.) they were less good. A future work will be the preparation of an input deck for the new MELCOR 1.8.6. and to perform a code-to-code comparison with ASTEC v1.2 rev. 1.