ML15126A256

GSI-191 Program Chemical Effects Testing Strainer Headloss Testing NRC Public Meeting - November 6, 2014

ML15126A256
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/06/2015
From:	Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Martin R
References
Download: ML15126A256 (76)

Text

VOGTLE GSI-191 PROGRAM CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING STRAINER HEADLOSS TESTING NRC PUBLIC MEETING N O V E M B E R 6, 2 0 1 4

AGENDA AGENDA

• Introductions

• Introductions

• Objectives for Meeting

• *Discussion of Integrated Chemical Effects Test Plans

• *Discussion of Strainer Head Loss Test Plans

• Feedback on Documents Provided for Review Prior to Meeting Meeting

• Staff Questions and Concerns

• Presentation provides topic highlights only, more detailed information is contained in other documents provided information is contained in other documents provided.

2

SNC ATTENDEES SNC ATTENDEES

• Ken McElroy Licensing Manager

• Ken McElroy - Licensing Manager

• Ryan Joyce - Licensing

• Phillip Grissom - Program Manager GSI-191 Phillip Grissom Program Manager GSI 191

• Tim Littleton - Lead Engineer Vogtle Design

• Franchelli Febo - Vogtle Site Design

• Owen Scott - Risk Informed Engineering 3

OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING

• Provide an overview of Vogtle plans for future large

• Provide an overview of Vogtle plans for future large scale chemical effects and strainer headloss testing, and receive any comments, concerns, or feedback from NRC staff Receive any NRC observations or feedback on

• Receive any NRC observations or feedback on documents provided for review prior to this meeting 4

VOGTLE BACKGROUND VOGTLE BACKGROUND Vogtle Description Vogtle Description

• Westinghouse 4-Loop PWR, 99% NUKON Insulation

• ~ 6 ft3 of Interam fire barrier

• GE Stacked Disk Strainers for ECCS and Containment Spray

• GE Stacked Disk Strainers for ECCS and Containment Spray (4/unit)

• 765 ft2 per each of 2 ECCS trains, separate CS strainers (2)

• TSP Buffer TSP Buffer Vogtle Status

• Strainer Head Loss and In-vessel issues remain open

• Previous chemical effects testing provided very promising

• Previous chemical effects testing provided very promising results, but not accepted by NRC

• Vogtle elected to follow Option 2B (risk-informed resolution) of SECY-12-0093, as being piloted by STP g p y

5

DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO MEETING

• Strainer Headloss

• SNCV083-PR-05, Rev 0, Risk-Informed Head Loss Test Strategy, October 2014

• Chemical Effects

• Chemical Effects

• CHLE-SNC-001, Rev. 2, Bench Test Results for Series 1000 Tests for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, September 2013 C

S C 00 2

h l

f S

i 3000

• CHLE-SNC-007, Rev. 2, Bench Test Results for Series 3000 Tests for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, January 2014

• CHLE-SNC-008, Rev. 3, Column Chemical Head Loss E

i t l P d

d A t

C it i M h

Experimental Procedures and Acceptance Criteria, March 2014

• CHLE-SNC-020, Rev 0, Test Plan-Vogtle Risk Informed GSI-191 CHLE T t T6 T7 d T8 O t b 2014 191 CHLE Test T6, T7 and T8, October 2014 6

INTEGRATED CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING U N I V E R S I T Y O F N E W M E X I C O E N E R C O N E N E R C O N A L I O N S C I E N C E A N D T E C H N O L O G Y 7

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW OVERVIEW

• 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8)

• Similar to STP Test T2, but with Vogtle Specifics

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Based on Double Ended Guillotine Break of the 29 Hot Leg Based on Double Ended Guillotine Break of the 29 Hot Leg Piping on Loop 4 of the RCS (Weld# 11201-004-6-RB)

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds (T6)

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds (T7) p

(

)

8

30-DAY INTEGRATED TANK TEST (T8) 30-DAY INTEGRATED TANK TEST (T8)

• Objective:

Objective:

• Determine and characterize chemical precipitates generated during a simulated LOCA event

• Investigate effects of potential chemical products on head loss G

l f

i l

d b k

• Generate test results for a simulated break case to compare with the chemical effects model

• Based on Double Ended Guillotine Break of the 29 Hot Leg Piping on Loop 4 of the RCS (Weld# 11201-004-6-RB) g

(

)

• Includes:

• CHLE Corrosion tank

• Prototypical Vogtle Water Chemistry

• Corrosion and Ancillary Materials

• Vertical Column System

• Multi-Particulate Debris Beds 9

SUMMARY

OF PREVIOUS TESTING (STP)

(

)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Corrosion

- Al

- Al scaffold

- Al GS Zn

- Al coupons

- Al scaffold Corrosion materials

- Al scaffolding

- Fiberglass

- Al scaffold

- Fiberglass

- GS, Zn coupons

- Concrete

- Al, GS, Zn coupons

- Fiberglass

- Concrete

- Al coupons

- Fiberglass

- Al scaffold

- Fiberglass

- GS, Zn coupons

- Concrete

- Concrete

- Concrete Avg Vel (ft/s) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 pH 7.22 7.32 7.22 7.22 7.25 Temperature profile MB-LOCA LB-LOCA Non-Prototypical Non-Prototypical LB-LOCA Testing Per.

30-day 30-day 10-day 10-day 10-day Bed prep.

NEI NEI Blend & NEI Blend & NEI Blender 10

SUMMARY

OF PROPOSED TESTING (SNC)

(

)

T6 T7 T8 Corrosion materials

- Al, GS, Cu, CS -

Fiberglass Concrete

- Al, GS coupons

- Fiberglass Concrete

- Al, GS, Cu, CS -

Fiberglass Concrete

- Concrete

- MAP, Interam, Dirt

- Epoxy, IOZ

- Concrete

- IOZ

- Concrete

- MAP, Interam, Dirt

- Epoxy, IOZ Velocity (ft/s) 0 013 0 013 0 013 Velocity (ft/s) 0.013 0.013 0.013 Target pH 7.2 7.2 7.2 Temperature fil Modified LB-LOCA Non-Prototypical Modified LB-LOCA profile Testing period 30-day 10-day 30-day Bed type None Multi-Constituent Multi-Constituent yp Particulate Particulate 11

TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T8 TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T8 12

TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T8 TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T8

• T6/T8 Temperature Profile (initial hour)

• Best Estimate case is below 185°F within ~10 min

• T6/T8 materials are immediately submerged and exposed to sprays No credit taken for the time to activate sprays and fill the sump 13 No credit taken for the time to activate sprays and fill the sump No credit taken for thermal lag of materials in containment

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW 30 Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed

• 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8)

Vertical Column Head Loss System

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA yp C

y g

g OC

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 14

CHLE - VERTICAL HEAD LOSS TESTING TESTING UNM Testing Facility UNM Testing Facility Previous Testing (NEI and Blender Beds)

Head Loss Results Head Loss Results Debris Beds with Acrylic Particulates o

Head loss - Repeatability o

Head loss Repeatability o

Head loss - Stability & variability o

Bed sensitivity, Hysteresis & detectability D b i B d ith E P

ti l t Debris Beds with Epoxy Particulates 15

CHLE UNM Testing Facility CHLE UNM Testing Facility 16

CHLE VERTICAL HEAD LOSS MODULES CHLE VERTICAL HEAD LOSS MODULES 17

CHLE PREVIOUS TESTING CHLE PREVIOUS TESTING

NEI - Beds CHLE 010 40 mg/L of WCAP CHLE-010

Blender Bed 6 mg/L of WCAP

CHLE Results: Repeatability 60 Test 1 (Pav = 5.71 H2O")

Test #1, 2, and 3 - Paint/Fiber (40/20) 50

(

av 2

)

Test 2 (Pav = 5.69 H2O")

Test 3 (Pav = 5.97 H2O")

30 40 Approach Velocity (from 0.05 to 0.013 ft/s) s, P (H2O")

20 30 Head Loss Acrylic P ti l t SEM 10 Pav = 5.79 (H2O")

Particulate SEM 0

0 2

4 6

8 10 12 14 16 18 Time (hr) 19

CHLE Results: Stability and Variability Test #3 - Paint/Fiber (40/20) -

Long term test 10 Column #1 60 0.10 Approach Velocity Test #1, 2, and 3 - Paint/Fiber (40/20) 8 9

Column #1 Column #2 Column #3

+ 5%

")

40 50 0.08 Approach Velocity Head Loss 2O")

6 7

- 5%

Pav=7.69 ss, P (H2O" 30 40 0.06 Approach Velocity (from 0.0495 to 0.013 ft/s) d Loss, P (H2 After Adding Latent Debris/Dirt 4

5

- 7%

+ 7% Pav=4.489 Head Lo 10 20 0.02 0.04 Pav = 5.98 (H2O") - After 5 days Pav = 5.97 (H2O") - After 11 hrs Head Before Adding 2

3 0

5 10 15 20 0

0 1

2 3

4 5

Time (Day) g Latent Debris/Dirt 0

5 0

5 0

Time (hr) 20

CHLE Results: Sensitivity, Hysteresis &

Chemical Detectability Chemical Detectability 7

0.020 Pav= 6.124 Pav= 6.859 P = 5.98 (H O")

20 OOH OOH OOH PO4)2 PO4)2 PO4)2 Head Loss 5

6 0 016 P = 4 59 Pav= 5.297 Pav 5.98 (H2O )

O")

(ft/s) 14 16 18 8"

Batch 3-Al Batch 2-AlO Batch 1-AlO Batch 3-Ca3(P Batch 2-Ca3(P Batch 1-Ca3(P O")

3 4

0.016 AV = 0.013 AV = 0.014 Pav= 3.29 Pav= 3.942 Pav= 4.59 oss, P (H2 ch Velocity (

8 10 12 P = 15.78 P = 15.27" P = 14.6" P = 14.52" P = 13.15" 6"

Conv = 5.12" Loss, P (H2O Appro ach 2

3 0.012 AV 0 010 AV = 0.011 AV = 0.012 AV = 0.013 ft/s Head L Approac 4

6 8

0 086 ft/s P = 10.5 PC Head ach Velocit y

0 1

0 2

4 6

8 10 12 0.008 AV = 0.009 AV = 0.010 0

2 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.086 ft/s Time (hr)

Time (Day) 21

0 05 14 CHLE - Results: Detectability with Epoxy 0.05 12 14 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 4 %

Criteria (%)

Medium - Thick Beds with Epoxy 0.04 12 ity (ft/s)

H2O")

0 0.2 0.4 0

50 100 150 200 0.4 %

Stability C SEM IOZ 0.03 10 roach Veloc ead Loss (H 0

50 100 150 200 Time (hr)

Fiber = 20 g E

36

)2 SEM - IOZ SEM - Epoxy 0.02 8

AV 0 0128 ft/

Appr He Epoxy = 36 g IOZ = 2 g Latent Debris/Dirt = 2 g AlOOH AlOOH Ca3(PO4) 0.01 0

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 6

AV =0.0128 ft/s Time (hr) 22

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8) 30 Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8)

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 23

PROTOTYPICAL CHEMICALS: CHLE TANK Chemical Type Vogtle Quantity (mM)

CHLE Tank Quantity (g)

Significance H3BO3 221.4 15546 Initial Pool Chemistry LiOH 0.0504 1.372 HCl 2.39 99 Radiolysis Generated Chemicals HNO3 0.0873 6.2 TSP 5.83 2582 Containment Buffering Agent 24

CHEMICAL ADDITION PROTOCOLS CHEMICAL ADDITION PROTOCOLS

• Initial Pool Chemistry

• Initial Pool Chemistry

• Boric Acid

• Lithium Hydroxide ([Li]=0.35 mg/L)

• TSP metered in continuously during first two hours of test to desired final concentration Radiolysis generated materials added throughout

• Radiolysis generated materials added throughout test

• Batch addition at 1, 2, 5, 10, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> initially

• Continued additions periodically thereafter 25

PROTOTYPICAL MATERIALS:

CHLE TANK (1 OF 2)

Material Type Vogtle Quantity 300 gal CHLE Material Type Vogtle Quantity Test Quantity*

Aluminum (submerged) 54 ft2 0.026 ft2 (3.7 in2)

Aluminum (exposed to spray) 4,003 ft2 1.91 ft2 Aluminum (exposed to spray) 4,003 ft 1.91 ft Galvanized Steel (submerged) 19,144 ft2 9.13 ft2 Galvanized Steel (exposed to

)

191,234 ft2 91.2 ft2 spray) 191,234 ft 91.2 ft Copper (submerged) 149.8 ft2 0.0715 ft2 (10.3 in2)

Fire Extinguisher Dry Chemical g

y

- Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) 357 lbm 0.170 lbm (77.2 g)

Interam' E-54C (submerged) 4.448 ft3 2.12 x10-3 ft3 (3.67 in3)

(

g

)

(

)

26

PROTOTYPICAL MATERIALS:

CHLE TANK (2 OF 2)

CHLE TANK (2 OF 2)

Material Type Vogtle Quantity 300 gal CHLE Material Type Vogtle Quantity Test Quantity*

Carbon Steel (submerged) 548.0 ft2 0.261 ft2 (37.6 in2)

Carbon Steel (exposed to 2

2 2

Carbon Steel (exposed to spray) 367.5 ft2 0.175 ft2 (25.2 in2)

Concrete (submerged) 2,092 ft2 0.998 ft2 (144 in2)

IOZ Coatings Zinc Filler IOZ Coatings Zinc Filler (submerged) 50 lbm 0.024 lbm (11 g)

Epoxy Coatings (submerged) 2,785 lbm 1.33 lbm (603 g)

Latent Dirt/Dust (submerged) 51 lbm 0.024 lbm (11 g)

Fiberglass (submerged) 2,552 ft3 1.218 ft3 27

MATERIAL ADDITION PROTOCOLS MATERIAL ADDITION PROTOCOLS

• Submerged metal coupons

• Submerged metal coupons

• Arranged in a submergible rack system within tank

• Unsubmerged metal coupons i

i i i

i

• Secured individually to a rack system within tank

• Loose materials

• Concrete affixed to a submerged coupon rack g

p

• Interam, MAP, latent dirt/dust, fiberglass and IOZ* will be loosely packed in wire mesh bags submerged front of one of the tank headers

• Total inventory of IOZ may be added to the vertical columns instead of to the tank if it is determined to be too fine to contain in a mesh bag 28

COUPON RACKS COUPON RACKS 29

MATERIAL BAGS MATERIAL BAGS 30

PROTOTYPICAL MATERIALS:

DEBRIS BEDS Material Type 300 gal CHLE Test Quantity*

Quantity per Column (g)

Test Quantity (g)

IOZ Coatings Zinc Filler 0.014 lbm (6.4 g) 2.13 Epoxy Coatings 0.236 lbm (107.2 g) 35.74

• Debris Bed Materials are loaded into columns Latent Dirt/Dust 0.014 lbm (6.4 g) 2.13 Fiberglass 0.055 ft3 (60 g) 20 Debris Bed Materials are loaded into columns before connection to tank solution with loaded tank materials

• Connection between tank and column system occurs once beds reach criteria for t bilit stability 31

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System 30 Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds yp y

/

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 32

BENCH SCALE TESTS: ALUMINUM BENCH SCALE TESTS: ALUMINUM

• Objectives Objectives

• Time-Averaged Corrosion due to Variations in pH, Temperature, Ph h t (TSP)

Phosphate (TSP)

• Corrosion and release rates over a range of temperature and pH values range of temperature and pH values

• Comparison with WCAP correlation for Al

• Effects on Al Corrosion due to Other Corrosion Materials Present During LOCA

• Zinc Copper Iron Chlorine Zinc, Copper, Iron, Chlorine 33

BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM

• Time-averaged corrosion rate reached Time averaged corrosion rate reached maximum within 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> P

i ti f

l i

d ithi

• Passivation of aluminum occurred within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (stabilized rate of release)

• Direct correlation between corrosion rate and higher temperature/pH values (next two figures) 34

BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM 12 8

10 on (mg/L) 6 8

concentratio 2

4 Aluminum c 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (hr)

Series 1100 85degrC Series 1500 70degrC Series 1600 55degrC 35 Series 1100, 85degrC Series 1500, 70degrC Series 1600, 55degrC

BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM 40 30 35 on (mg/L) 20 25 concentratio 5

10 15 Aluminum c 0

5 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 A

Time (hr)

S i

1400 H 7 84 S

i 1100 H 7 34 S

i 1300 H 6 84 36 Series 1400, pH 7.84 Series 1100, pH 7.34 Series 1300, pH 6.84

BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM

• Presence of zinc inhibits the corrosion

• Presence of zinc inhibits the corrosion of aluminum

• Presence of copper chloride and iron

• Presence of copper, chloride and iron ions have little appreciable effect on corrosion of aluminum corrosion of aluminum

• 24-hour release of aluminum is reduced by a factor of 2-3 compared reduced by a factor of 2 3 compared to the WCAP-16530 equations by including passivation in the TSP i

t environment 37

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System 30 Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank yp y

Test w/o Debris Beds (T6)

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 38

ADDITIONAL CE TANK TESTS ADDITIONAL CE TANK TESTS

• 30 Day Recirculatory Tank Test (T6)

• 30-Day Recirculatory Tank Test (T6)

• Objective:

i i

ff f

• Investigate isolated effects of water chemistry on plant materials during a LOCA LOCA

• No vertical column system or debris beds

• Prototypical Vogtle Water Chemistry

• Temperature Profile Identical to T8 39

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System y

g

/

y

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds F

d P i it ti T

k T t

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds (T7) 40

ADDITIONAL CE TANK TESTS ADDITIONAL CE TANK TESTS

• 10-Day Integrated Tank Test (T7)

• Objective:

• Investigate material corrosion and any resulting ff t

h d l d

f d

i it ti effects on head loss under forced precipitation conditions using Vogtle quantities for boron, TSP, concrete, galvanized steel, and zinc

• Corrosion Tank

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• Excess aluminum submerged in CHLE Tank (parallel to T3 test for STP)

• Different Temperature Profile than T6/T8

• Different Temperature Profile than T6/T8 41

TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T7 TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T7 42

NEXT STEPS NEXT STEPS

• Vertical Column Head Loss

• Vertical Column Head Loss

• Explore effects of chemical surrogates on measured head loss for various fiber/particulate ratios (thin, medium, and thick debris beds)

T k T t

• Tank Tests

• Perform T6, T7, T8 tests

• Bench Scale Tests

• Bench Scale Tests

• Zinc

• Calcium

• Calcium 43

REFERENCES REFERENCES

• CHLE SNC 001 (Bench Tests: Aluminum)

• CHLE-SNC-001 (Bench Tests: Aluminum)

• CHLE-SNC-007 (Bench Tests: Aluminum w/other metals)

• CHLE-SNC-008 (HL Operating Procedure)

• CHLE-SNC-020 (Test Plan for T6, T7 & T8) 44

STRAINER HEAD LOSS TEST PLAN 45

RISK-INFORMED CONVENTIONAL HEAD LOSS TEST STRATEGY

• Enercon Services Inc

• Enercon Services, Inc.

• Tim Sande

• Kip Walker

• Alden Research Laboratory

• Ludwig Haber 46

HEAD LOSS MODEL HEAD LOSS MODEL

• Why is a head loss model necessary?

Why is a head loss model necessary?

• Thousands of break scenarios Each with unique conditions (break flow rate, sump water level, debris loads, etc.)

Parameters that change with time g

• It is not practical to conduct a head loss test for every scenario

• Approaches for developing a risk-informed head loss model

• Correlation approach has some advantages, but very difficult to implement implement

• Rule-based approach is focused on prototypical conditions for a given plant, which makes it more practical

• Hybrid approach uses rule-based head loss data to create an empirical correlation p

• An overall head loss test strategy is presented which includes some Vogtle-specific implementation information. Other plants are evaluating and may use all or parts of this strategy.

47

HYPOTHETICAL TEST RESULTS HYPOTHETICAL TEST RESULTS 48

= particulate/fiber ratio

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Conservatisms required to limit test scope Conservatisms required to limit test scope

• Reduce all particulate types to one bounding surrogate

• Reduce all fiber types to one bounding surrogate

• Reduce all water chemistries to one bounding chemistry

• Notes:

• Surrogate properties include the debris type size

• Surrogate properties include the debris type, size distribution, density, etc.

• Bounding refers to a parameter value that maximizes head loss within the range of plant specific conditions loss within the range of plant-specific conditions

• Test details will be fully developed in a plant-specific test plan 49

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Definition of testing limits based on plant specific

• Definition of testing limits based on plant-specific conditions

• Maximum fiber quantity

• Maximum particulate quantity

• Maximum particulate to fiber ratio (max )

• Use of small-scale testing

• Use of small-scale testing

• If a small-scale version of the prototype strainer can be shown to provide the same head loss results as a large-scale strainer test program will utilize small scale head loss values strainer, test program will utilize small-scale head loss values to build model

• Reduced cost and schedule would allow more data to be gathered gathered 50

OVERVIEW OF TEST PROGRAM OVERVIEW OF TEST PROGRAM

• Test Series Test Series

• Large-scale test with thin-bed protocol

• Large-scale test with full-load protocol

• Validation of small-scale testing

• Small-scale sensitivity tests

• Small-scale tests with full-load protocol

• Need to determine minimum fiber and maximum particulate quantity (i e maximum ) required to particulate quantity (i.e., maximum ) required to generate significant conventional debris head loss

• Significant head loss subjectively defined as 1.5 ft

• Vogtles NPSH margin ranges from 10 ft to over 40 ft, Vogtle s NPSH margin ranges from 10 ft to over 40 ft, depending on pool temperature and containment pressure

• Head loss below 1.5 ft is not likely to cause failures under most circumstances even if future chemical effects testing results in significant head loss significant head loss 51

LARGE-SCALE TEST WITH THIN-BED PROTOCOL

• Purpose Purpose

• Identify minimum fiber load required to develop significant conventional head loss (maximum )

• Obtain prototypical head loss data for use in validating the small-scale strainer

• Measure bounding strainer head loss for thin-bed conditions

• Test Protocol

• Use buffered and borated water at 120 °F

• Perform flow sweep to measure clean strainer head loss p

• Add prototypical mixture of particulate debris (max quantities)

• Batch in prototypical mixture of fiber debris (one type at Vogtle) in small increments (1/32nd inch equivalent bed thickness)

• Measure stable head loss and perform flow sweep between each batch

• Continue adding fiber until a head loss of 1.5 ft is observed

• Perform temperature sweep

• Batch in chemical precipitates (quantity and form to be determined by separate analysis/testing) 52

LARGE-SCALE TEST WITH FULL-LOAD PROTOCOL

• Purpose Purpose

• Identify fiber quantity required to fill the interstitial volume

• Obtain prototypical head loss data for use in validating the small-scale strainer

• Measure bounding strainer head loss for full-load conditions g

• Test Protocol

• Use buffered and borated water at 120 °F

• Perform flow sweep to measure clean strainer head loss

• Utilize value corresponding to bounding fiber debris quantity with same Utilize value corresponding to bounding fiber debris quantity with same particulate load used for large-scale thin-bed test

• Batch in prototypical mixture of fiber and particulate debris maintaining the desired value for each batch

• Measure stable head loss and perform flow sweep between each batch

• Repeat batches and flow sweeps until full fiber and particulate load has been added

• Perform temperature sweep

• Batch in chemical precipitates (quantity and form to be determined by separate analysis/testing) separate analysis/testing) 53

VALIDATION OF SMALL-SCALE TESTING

• Design small scale strainer using proven scaling

• Design small-scale strainer using proven scaling techniques

• Test small-scale strainer under conditions similar to large-scale testing (both thin-bed and full-load protocols)

Adjust strainer or tank design as necessary to

• Adjust strainer or tank design as necessary to appropriately match large-scale test results

• Note: If small-scale testing cannot be validated due g

to competing scaling factors, the remaining tests could be performed using the large-scale strainer 54

SMALL-SCALE SENSITIVITY TESTS SMALL-SCALE SENSITIVITY TESTS

• Purpose

• Purpose

• Reduce all particulate types to a single bounding surrogate

• Reduce all fiber types to a single bounding surrogate (Vogtle only has one fiber type)

• Reduce range of prototypical water chemistries to a single bounding chemistry

• Tests will be run with a variety of representative parameters to identify the parameters for use in remaining tests

• Gather data for head loss caused by various types of y

yp chemical surrogates 55

SMALL-SCALE TESTS WITH FULL-LOAD PROTOCOL

• Purpose of these tests are to gather data necessary

• Purpose of these tests are to gather data necessary to build the head loss model

• Test Protocol will be similar to large-scale, full-load g

test except that the small-scale tests will be conducted using the bounding surrogates for fiber, particulate and water chemistry particulate, and water chemistry

• Perform series of tests (e.g., 9 tests) at different values with equivalent fiber batch sizes for each test 56

RULE-BASED IMPLEMENTATION RULE-BASED IMPLEMENTATION 57

OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

• Select head loss value for bounding fiber quantity

• Select head loss value for bounding fiber quantity and value

• Interpolate between two fiber values and use p

bounding value

• Interpolate between all four points 58

VOGTLE DEBRIS GENERATION VOGTLE DEBRIS GENERATION

• Debris quantities vary significantly Debris quantities vary significantly for different weld locations and break sizes

• Max Fiber (11201-004-6-RB, Hot leg at base of SG) leg at base of SG)

• Nukon: 2,235 ft3

• Latent fiber: 4 ft3

• Total: 2,239 ft3 Max Particulate (11201 008 4 RB

• Max Particulate (11201-008-4-RB, Crossover leg)

• Interam: 183 lbm

• Qualified epoxy: 188 lbm

• Qualified IOZ: 61 lbm

• Unqualified epoxy: 2,602 lbm

• Unqualified IOZ: 25 lbm

• Unqualified alkyd: 32 lbm

• RCS Crud: 23 lbm

• Latent dirt/dust: 51 lbm

• Total: 3,165 lbm 59

VOGTLE DEBRIS TRANSPORT VOGTLE DEBRIS TRANSPORT

• Debris transport varies significantly depending on

• Debris transport varies significantly depending on several parameters

• Break location (compartment)

• Debris size distribution

• Number of pumps/trains in operation

• Whether containment sprays are activated Whether containment sprays are activated

• Location of unqualified coatings

• Time when containment sprays are secured F il ti f

lifi d ti

• Failure time for unqualified coatings

• ECCS/CSS pump flow rates

• Recirculation pool water level 60

VOGTLE FIBER TRANSPORT FRACTIONS TO ONE RHR STRAINER*

Debris Size 1 Train w/

2 Train w/

1 Train 2 Train Debris Type Size 1 Train w/

Spray 2 Train w/

Spray 1 Train w/out Spray 2 Train w/out Spray Nukon Fines 58%

29%

23%

12%

u o es 58%

9%

3%

Small 48%

24%

5%

2%

Large 6%

3%

7%

4%

I t t

0%

0%

0%

0%

Intact 0%

0%

0%

0%

Latent Fines 58%

29%

28%

14%

• Preliminary values 61

VOGTLE PARTICULATE TRANSPORT FRACTIONS TO ONE RHR STRAINER*

Debris Type Size 1 Train w/

Spray 2 Train w/

Spray 1 Train w/out Spray 2 Train w/out Spray Spray Spray Spray Spray Unqualified Epoxy Fines 58%

29%

44%

22%

Fine Chips 0%

0%

0%

0%

Small Chips 0%

0%

0%

0%

Large Chips 0%

0%

0%

0%

Curled Chips 58%

29%

5%

7%

Unqualified IOZ Fines 58%

29%

12%

6%

U lifi d Alk d Fi 58%

29%

100%

50%

Unqualified Alkyd Fines 58%

29%

100%

50%

Interam Fines 58%

29%

23%

12%

Qualified Epoxy Fines 58%

29%

23%

12%

Qualified IOZ Fines 58%

29%

23%

12%

Qualified IOZ Fines 58%

29%

23%

12%

Latent dirt/dust Fines 58%

29%

28%

14%

RCS Crud Fines 58%

29%

23%

12%

• Preliminary values 62

DEBRIS TRANSPORT W/O CONTAINMENT SPRAYS

• Blowdown transport fractions are not changed

• Blowdown transport fractions are not changed

• Distribution of debris prior to recirculation remains unchanged g

• 5% of fines assumed to be washed down due to condensation in containment 63

VOGTLE FIBER TRANSPORT TO ONE RHR STRAINER, 1 TRAIN W/SPRAY*

Debris Type Size DG Quantity Transport Quantity Debris Type Size DG Quantity (ft3)

Transport Fraction Quantity (ft3)

Nukon Fines 290.5 58%

168.5 Small 1 001 1 48%

480 5 Small 1,001.1 48%

480.5 Large 453.6 6%

27.2 Intact 489.4 0%

0.0 Total 2,234.7 676.3 Latent Fines 3.8 58%

2.2 Total 2,238.5 678.4

• Preliminary values 64

VOGTLE PARTICULATE TRANSPORT TO ONE RHR STRAINER, 1 TRAIN W/SPRAY*

Debris Type Size DG Quantity (lbm)

Transport Fraction Quantity (lbm)

Unqualified Epoxy Fines 319.5 58%

185.3 Fine Chips 968.7 0%

0.0 Small Chips 245.4 0%

0.0 L

Chi 534 2 0%

0 0 Large Chips 534.2 0%

0.0 Curled Chips 534.2 58%

309.8 Total 2,602.0 495.2 Unqualified IOZ Fines 25.0 58%

14.5 q

Unqualified Alkyd Fines 32.0 58%

18.6 Interam Fines 182.9 58%

106.1 Qualified Epoxy Fines 187.6 58%

108.8 Qualified IOZ Fines 61.3 58%

35.6 Latent dirt/dust Fines 51.0 58%

29.6 RCS Crud Fines 23.0 58%

13.3 Total 3 164 8 821 6 Total 3,164.8 821.6 65

• Preliminary values

HYPOTHETICAL TEST RESULTS WITH TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS 66

SUMMARY

• A comprehensive test program is necessary to

• A comprehensive test program is necessary to quantify head loss for thousands of break scenarios

• The rule based approach is a more practical option pp p

p than a full correlation or test for every break scenario Simplifications of fiber type particulate surrogate

• Simplifications of fiber type, particulate surrogate, and water chemistry are necessary to develop a practical test matrix

• Small-scale testing may be utilized to gather a majority of the data 67

CHEMICAL EFFECTS BACKUP SLIDES 68

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8) y g

/

y

(

)

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 69

CHLE TROUBLESHOOTING APPROACH CHLE TROUBLESHOOTING APPROACH Modifications to CHLE Tank & Column Modifications to CHLE Tank & Column System 1.

Single flow header for each column 1.

Single flow header for each column 2.

Unified suction and discharge plumbing arrangement 3.

Improved flow distribution sparger 4.

Develop a new procedure for debris bed p

p preparation and loading [CHLE-SNC-008]

Stable head loss

R t bl h

d l

( i l

l

)

Repeatable head loss (single column)

Minimum variability

Chemical detection 70

CHLE TANK AND COLUMN MODIFICATIONS Upper stainless Polycarbonate section Lower stainless steel section Upper stainless steel section V6 CHLE System Before Modifications Column Head Loss Module C1 C2 C3 FM Spray system CHLE Tank C3 V1 C3-V2 C3 V3 C3-V4 C3-V5 C3-V6 C2 V1 C2-V2 C2 V3 C2-V4 C2-V5 C2-V6 To Drain C1-V1 C1-V2 C1 V3 C1-V4 C1-V5 C1-V6 To Drain To Drain V8 CHLE System After C3-V1 C3-V3 C2-V1 C2-V3 C1-V1 C1-V3 V9 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V10 V11 V12 To Drain V13 After Modifications V14 (Sampling) 71

ALUMINUM CORRELATION DATA: BEST FIT ALUMINUM CORRELATION DATA: BEST FIT 40 L) 30 ation (mg/L 20 d concentra 10 Predicted 0

0 10 20 30 40 Measured concentration (mg/L) 72

STRAINER HEADLOSS BACKUP SLIDES 73

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

• 35 Years of History and Lessons Learned

• 35 Years of History and Lessons Learned

• USI A-43 (opened in 1979)

• Head loss testing/correlations for fiber and RMI (no particulate)

• Resolved without major plant modifications

• Bulletins 93-02 and 96-03

• Incident at Barsebck in 1992 and similar events at Perry and Limerick showed that mixtures of fiber and particulate can cause higher head loss than previously evaluated

• BWR research and plant-specific evaluations led to strainer replacements at all U S BWRs replacements at all U.S. BWRs

• Issue resolved in early 2000s.

74

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

• 35 Years of History and Lessons Learned Cont

• 35 Years of History and Lessons Learned, Cont.

• GSI-191 and GL 2004-02

• Based on BWR concerns, GSI-191 was opened in 1996 to dd ECCS t i

f f

PWR address ECCS strainer performance for PWRs

• Chemical effects identified as an additional contributor to strainer head loss

• PWR research and plant specific evaluations led to strainer

• PWR research and plant-specific evaluations led to strainer replacements at all U.S. PWRs

• Complexities in evaluations have delayed closure for most plants p a s

• NRC head loss guidance issued in March 2008 75

3M INTERAM E-50 SERIES 3M INTERAM E-50 SERIES

• MSDS and observations indicate that it is 30% fiber

• MSDS and observations indicate that it is 30% fiber and 70% particulate

• Non-QA testing with NEI fiber preparation protocol g

p p

p indicates that it is more robust than Temp-Mat

• 11.7D ZOI can be justified Testing indicates that 50% fines and 50% small

• Testing indicates that 50% fines and 50% small pieces would be conservative (i.e.. smaller than actual)

• Transport metrics can be developed based on density and particle sizes, similar to other types of debris debris 76