Fusion technology is progressing consistently, as evidenced many ongoing private and public initiatives, with long pulse projects like DEMO where materials behaviour is an important issue to address. To support the development of materials capable of tolerating the extreme conditions expected in future fusion reactors, the construction of the IFMIF-DONES facility has been planned. One of its systems are the Lithium ones, which includes the Primary Loop System responsible for supplying liquid Lithium to obtain the high flux, fusion-like neutron source to test materials. Since liquid Lithium is a hazardous material, emergency draining strategies are required to mitigate the consequences of emergency shutdowns and loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs) in the loop. There are currently two different draining strategies under consideration. The first strategy, referred to as Strategy 1, is based on maintaining the dump dank of the loop under near-vacuum conditions. The created pressure difference, together with gravity effects, allows the lithium to drain fast towards the dump tank. In contrast, Strategy 2 introduces a high-pressure argon injection system designed to push the lithium into the dump tank, which stays at a higher pressure.To compare the proposed draining strategies, a detailed model was developed using the MELCOR code. A validation exercise demonstrated that MELCOR is capable of accurately reproducing lithium transport under the expected IFMIF-DONES operating conditions. An additional exercise based on the subcooled Henry–Fauske model confirmed that draining velocity remained below the speed of sound in the two-phase mixture, excluding the appearance of complex-to-simulate choked flow phenomena.Then, both strategies were evaluated under non-LOCA and LOCA emergency shutdown, considering different parameters, like pipe dimensions, break sizes and locations and delay of actuations. The results show that, under emergency draining conditions, both strategies provide very similar performance, with Strategy 2 draining the lithium inventory approximately 12 seconds faster than Strategy 1. However, under LOCA conditions, Strategy 1 presents a clear advantage, reducing the leaked lithium inventory by approximately 20% to 45% compared to Strategy 2. Additionally, increasing the diameter of the draining pipes significantly improved the draining process while further reducing the leaked lithium inventory.