ML17276A658

Forwards Responses to Hydrologic Engineering Section Safety Questions 371.015,371.016,371.017 & 371.018 Contained in NRC 811104 Ltr.Other Responses Will Be Submitted by 820115.Ten Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards Are in PDR

ML17276A658
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	12/30/1981
From:	Bouchey G WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17276A665	List: ML17276A658 ML17276A672 ML17276A682 ML17276A690 ML17276A701 ML17276A708 ML17276A716 ML17276A727 ML17276A736 ML17276A745 ML17276A755
References
GO2-81-561, NUDOCS 8201070216
Download: ML17276A658 (178)

Text

REGULA L<<RY INFORM<<A'7 ION DISTRIBUTIO SYSTEM ('RIDS)

AGCE'SSION NBR:8201070216 DOC ~ DATE: 81/12/30 NOTARI'ZED: NO DOCKET FAOIL:50-397 NPPSS Nuclear Pr oJect~ Unit 2r washington >Public Powe 05000397 AUTH, NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION BOUCHEY<G,D. washington Public 'Power Supply 'System

>RE<<CIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION SCHKENCERiA, Licensing Branch 'E

SUBJECT:

Forwards responses to,Hydrologic Engineering Section Safety Questions 371,015i371.016E371,017 8, 371.018 contained in NRC' 811104 lttr. Other r esponses will be submi t ted by 820115. Ten oversize dr awings encl. Aper ture cards ar e in PDR ~

OIBTRIBUTION coo'E: Boo<<s coPIEs RECEIVED:LTR. L ENCL@<<:<<sizE: tg ~> 4Q TITLE: PSAR/FSAR 'AMDTS and Related Cor'respondence NOTES:2 coPies all 05000397 o< ~4~ Y matl:PM'ac.>x

~

RECIPIENT <<COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ACTION: '/D ID CODE/NAME LIC LICENSNG BR P2 LA LTTR ENCL 1

1 0

s0 ID CODE/NAME LIC BR P2 BC AULUCKgR ~ 01 LTTR ENCL 1

1 0

1 INTERNALS ELD 1 0 IE 06 3 3 IE/DEP/EPDB 35 1 1 IE/DEP/EPI B 36 3 3 MPA 1 0 NRR/DE/CEB 11 1 1 NRR/DE/EQB 13 3 3 NRR/DE/GB 28 2 2 NRR/DE/HGEB 30 2 '2 NRR/DE/MEB 18 1 1 NRR/DE/M<<TEB 17 1 1 NRR/DE/QAB 21 1 1 NRR/DE/SAB 24 1 1 NRR/DE/SEB 25 1 1 NRR/DHFS/HFEB40 1 1 NRR/DHFS/LQB 32 1 1 NRR/DHFS/OLB 34 1 1 NRR/DHFS/PTRB20 1 1 NRR/DS I/AEB 26 1 1 NRR/DSI/ASH 27 1 1 NRR/DS I/GPB 10 1 1 NRR/DSI/CS8 09 1 NRR/DSI/ETSB 12 1 1 NRR/DS I/ICSB 16 1 1 NRR/DS I/PS B 19 1 1 NRR/DSI/RAB 22 1 1 NRR/DS / 23 1 1 NRR/DST/LGB 33 1 1 04 1 1 EXTERNAL; ACRS 16 16 BNL (AMDTS ONlY) 1 FEMA 'REP DI V 39 1 1 LPDR 03 . 1 NRC PDR 02 1 NSIC 05 1 NTIS 1 1 g ~+~ ~Q'l<<L~4 AgQ

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR PS ENCL p&l

e, IK Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509) 372-5000 December 30, 1981 G02-81-561 SS-L-02-CDT-81-114

@Ega)VLO Docket No. 50-397 8 JqN6 >982~

Mr. A. Schwencer, Director Licensing Branch No. 2 TQC Division of Licensing U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D. C. 20555

Subject:

NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING SECTION SAFETY QUESTIONS Letter, A. Schwencer to R. L. Ferguson, "WNP-2 FSAR Request for Additional Information", dated November 4, 1981 Enclosed are sixty (60) copies of the completed responses to the Hydrolo-gic Engineering Section Safety guestions Nos. 371.015, 371.016, 371.017 and 371.018 transmitted to the Supply System by the referenced letter.

These responses will be incorporated into the next amendment to the FSAR. The remaining responses (to guestion Nos. 371.019 and 371.020) will be transmitted to the NRC by January 15, 198)'.

Very truly yours, G. D. Bouchey, Depu y Director

- Safety and Security CDT/sm Enclosures l)(5<

gq$ wg cc: R. Auluck - NRC

'c" WS Chin - BPA R Feil - NRC Site D~'

(1> g4'~

g, 0 S20) ppp PDR qoo~~~ B~iEab K pspppgp'7 l F'DR

r w4+ H 4

r C

I

Q. 371.015 We have repeatedly requested informat ion on the 'design basis rainfaLL for the roofs of safety"related bu iLdings (Q. 371.1 and 371.8). The purpose of this request is to allow the NRC staff to verify that the roofs of safety-re Lated structures can withstand the stresses resulting form P robab le Nax imum Precipitation (PNP) and other normal loads that are combined with PNP- Past practice indicates that the applicant generally has two choices as foLLows:

1. Where the structuraL distress Level (safety"related roofs) r in terms of ponded rainfaLL in combination with other normaL coincident Loadsr exceeds the height of the parapet waLLsr it is acceptable to provide the structur al distress Level and indicate that since this Level exceeds the height of parapet waLLsi PNP is not the controlling design basis event.

2. Where the structural distress Level (as previously defined) for the 'roof of a safety-related building is below the LeveL of the parapet walls the applicant must provide sufficient data for the NRC staff to independently determine the maximum depth of ponded wa'ter (PNP) and whether it is Less than the structuraL distress level. The minimum data required is:

a ~ Area of conf ined r oof .

b. Xf credit .is taken for the roof drainsr provide details of drains and justif ication. for percent blockage assumed; Consider ice and other possible debris.

c e Elevation of roof and parapet waLL.

d a Numbers sizer and eLevation of scuppers

e. Probable Naximum Precipitation rate and basis.

f. Where the above information is provided on drawingsi they should be full scale; reduced draw ings are generally not Legible.

Response

The safety-related structures addressed are as follows:

I Diesel Generator (D) Building II 8 IIA Radwaste/Control (W) Building and adjacent corridor III 8 I IIA IIIB 5 IIIC Reactor (R) BuiLding and adjacent corridors

, IV Standby Service Mater Pumphouse (IAi IB)

The subparagraphs for each building cor respond to the subparagraphs in the question requiring data.

8201070216 11

WNP-2 X DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING (METHOD 1)

Area of Conf ined Roof (Cols. P to S/3.8 to 10)

Total Area (within enclosure) = 12r058 sq. ft.

Parapet Height = 3'-8->" from L.P. 9 Top L.W. Conc.

3'-1" f r om H.P".' Top L.W. Conc.

Maximum Water Weight = 3.71 x 62.5 = 232 PSF Original Live Load = 274 PSF Thereforer structural distress level = 274/62.5

= 4.39ft.>3.71 ft.

Since the structural distress level exceeds the parapet height based on design loadsr the PMP loading is not controlling.

II RADWASTE/CONTROL BUILDING (METHOD 2) a ~ Area of Conf ined Roof (COLS. H.3 to L.9/9.4 to 15.1)

Total Area (Control Tower encl.) = 10429 sq. ft.

b. Provided 4 roof drains - assumed clogged c- Top of conc parapet EL. 545'-0" Top of built-up roof L.P. EL. 54? '-4Q" (I)*

Top of L.W. Conc. L.P. EL. 542'-1>~"

Top of built-up roof HP. EL 543'-1>>" (I)

• Top of L W. Conc. HP. EL. 542'-10>~"

d. Provided 4 overflow scuppers Size: 6" 8 sch. 40 pipe In ve r t EL. 542 '10>~" (+)

e. The point value (11.7" /6hr) of the PMP specified in FSAR Subsection 2.4.3.1 was used to evaluate roof loading.

f. Items (a) thru (d) shown on dwgs. A511i A513i A522,and A524.**

Roof design checked for PMP loading for a maximum water level of 1.53 ft. and found to be adequate. The accumulation included runoff from the Reactor Building west wall and assumed all drains and scuppers clogged. Thus'MP loading is not the controlling design basis event.

• Actual top of roof

• • Drawings submitted separately

II A RADWASTE/CONTROL BUILDING (NETHOD 2)

CORRIDOR B ETW W AND T BUILDINGS (COLS H to H. 3/9 .4 t o 1 '5 .'I )

a. Area of confined roof Total Area (within enclosure) = 835 sq. ft.

be Provided. 3 roof drains assumed clogged

c. Top of Conc. Parapet EL. 532'-0>~"

Top of L.W. Conc. L.P. EL. 530'-4Q" Top of L.W. Conc. H.P. 530'-9Q" d- Provided no scuppers in this area-

e. Refer to Item (e) in Area II.

f. Items (a) through (d) shown on drawings A511i A513i and A516.*"

Roof design checked for water loading equal to the full height of parapet and found to be adequate. The above ponding assumed all drains clogged. Thus'r PYiP loading is not the controlling design basis event.

III REACTOR BUILDING (NETHOD 2)

a. Area of Conf ined Rool (COLS. H.3 to N.8/3.2 to 9.4)

Total area (within enclosure) = 19817 sq. ft.

(South Side) from Roof H.P. " Area = 10728 sq- ft.

CNorth Side) from Roof H.P. " Area = 9089 sq. ft.

roof drains -

I

b. Provided 4 assumed clogged

'1 Top of steel parapet EL. 671'-2" Top of metal deck L.P. EL. 668'-2" (+)

Top of steel H.P. EL. 667'-0'op of metal deck H.P. EL. 668'-11/"*

Top of steel H.P. 668'-94"

d. Provided 8 overf low scuppers (4) Scuppers on North Side

,(4) Scuppers on South S ide Size: 6 9 sch ~ 40 pipe Inve rt EL. 668 '-2" (+)

e. Refer to item *(e) in Area II

• Actual top of roof

• • Drawings submitted separately

WNP-2

f. Items ** (a) thru (d) shown on dwgs. A511r A512~ A515 and A522 Roof design checked for maximum water Loading of 12 inches above L.P. of roof and found to be adequate. Thus PMP is not the cont, rolling design basis event.

IIIA REACTOR BUILDING (METHOD 1)

CORRIDOR BETWEEN R AND T BUILDINGS (Cols. H to H.3/3.4 to 4.1)

Total area of confined roof = 133 sq. ft.

Par apet height = 1'-7>>" from L.P. bui Lt up roo'f Maximum water weight = 62.5 x 1.62 = 101.3 PSF Original Live Load = 250.0 PSF Structural distress Level = 250/62.5 = 4.0 ft. >1.62 ft.

Since the structural distress Level exceeds the parapet heightr PMP is not controlLing.

Details shown on A511 and A516 (typical in corridors)

IIIB REACTOR BUILDING (METHOD 1)

CORRIDOR BETWEEN R AND T BUILDINGS (Cols. H to H.3/4.1 to 6 8)

Total area of confined roof Parapet height = 1'-6" from

= 497 sq- ft.

LE P. built up roof Maximum water weight 62.5 x 1.5 = 94 PSF Or iginaL Live Load = 250 PSF Structural di.stress Level 250/62;5 = 4.0 >1.5 C

Since the st rue tura di st re ss Level exceeds the parapet L

hei ghti PMP i s not cont roll lngo W

• • Drawings submitted sepa rate Ly

WNP -2 IIIC REACTOR BUILDING (METHOD 1)

CORRIDOR BETWEEN R AND T BUILDINGS (Cols. H to H.3/6.8 to 9.4)

Total area of confined roof = 413 sq- ft.

Parapet height = 1'-6" from L.P. built up roof Maximum water weight = 62.5 x 1.5 = 94 PSF Original Live Load = 250 PSF Structural distress Level = 250/62.5 = 4.0 ft. 01.5 ft.

Since the structural distress Level exceeds the 'parapet heightr the PMP is not controlling.

IV STANDBY SERVICE WATER PUMPHOUSE (METHOD 2)

a. Area of confined roof = 1682 sq. ft.

b- No roof drains provided-

c. Top pf conc. parapet EL. 467'-5" Top Top of roof L.W. Conc. fill L.P. EL. 465'-6$ "

of roof L.W. conc. fiLL H,P. EL. 466'-2"

d. Provided two overflow scuppers Size: 6" 8 s'ch. 40 pipe Inve rt EL. 465 '6>~" (t)

.Scuppers shown on drawings A515 and A570**

e. Refer to Item (e) in Area II

f. Items (a) through (d) shown on drawings A515 and A570 Roof design checked for maximum water Level of 11.7 inches and found to be adequate; The above ponding assumed aLL scuppers clogged. PMP is not the controlling design basis event.

• • Drawings'ubmitted separately

0 WNP-2 Q. 371.016 Reference previous questions numbers 371.1 and 371.8. Your responses did not provide sufficient information. Provide a unreduced post-construction topographic map(s) that clearly shows site drainage features including: (1) Road and railroad grade elevationi (2) invert elevation and size of drainage ditchesr (3) culvert invert elevationsi cross-sectionaL length and inlet and outlet featuresi (4) where drainage arear'ype<

water is temporarily ponded (maximum Level close to plant grade) provide the area-capacity information for the storage arear and (5) show the drainage sub-areasr direction of flows drainage arear hydrograph and peak discharge and method of computation.

II

Response

Figures 371.016-1 and 371.016-2 show post construction site topography and drainage features. Fi gure 371.016-1 shows the drainage plan for the PNP flood (Ref. FSAR 2.4.3.1)

Figure 371.016-2 shows the drainage sub-areas used in runoff'nd calculating peak discharges. Where drainage ditches are provided along roads'hey are typicaLLy one foot deep with side slopes of 2 to 1 maximum. The culvert provided on the east side of spray pond 1B is a 38 foot Long-8 inch diameter corrugated metaL pipe with a 0.5% slopes and inlet invert elevation at 433 7. Peak discharge flows from the storage areas in Figure 371.016 2 are given in Table 371.016 1-

WNP-2 Table 371.016-1 Storage Peak Zone ~Ca mac it Dischar e Remarks Open area " no calculation II(No. of RR) 2.0 cfs TI (So. o f RR) 3.3 cfs Due to Zone II South 16.3 c fs Due to overflow of Zones IIiIIIiVand VI 2a3 cfs IV 0.0 cfs Zone is composed of 8" crushed rock 36r000cu.ft. 8.9 cfs VI 10r000cu.ft. 1.9 cfs VII 1.7 cfs VIII 1.3 cfs 1500cu.ft. negligible 2250cu.ft. negligible 60i000cu.ft. 0.0 VII 0.4 cfs XIII 0.3 cfs XIV 4.0 cfs XV 2.7 c fs XVI 21.5 cfs Inc luding runo f f f rom Zone XV XVII 25.2 cfs Inc luding runoff f rom Zone XV and XVI XVIII 83i200cu. ft. 26.3 cfs XIX 10.4 c fs XX(No. of CT 1A) 4.9 cfs (So. of CT 1A) Flows directly to borrow area XXI Flows directly to borrow area Neth'ods of computation used were Izzards formula and the Rational formula.

~ ~

'<!r,a'-

g

~

>PEEP-2 A~'4D& ~ '

e >

C.t

~

ullJ+ v t~Pub II~ A 'I'p Page l of 1 I

Q 371.1 ~

Provide detailed post-construction topographic maps of the HNP-2 site and its surrounding area since neither 2.4-2 and 2.4-9 of the FSAR are legible nor do theyFigures sufficient detail. These revised maps should clearlyhave in addition to the plant structures,, the locations of show, streamsf ditches, culverts, and other pertinent drainage features.

Res nse:

-2 site. Details of the location map o culverts and other sign and will be pres

'eatur a esently under de-date as stated in es, 2.4 2.1. egibility of Figures 2.4- -9 have graphs of the WNP-2 site. The Legibility ures 2.4-2 and 2.4- en improved.

Details'f the Loc of ditches~ ertsi and other drainage res are shown'n Figures 371. d See response to NRC Question 371.016.

371r001 1

pO

g. 371. 8 As requested in item 371.1 of the first acceptance review

~ fuestions issued on June 24; 1977, provide a detailed post-construction topographic map of the plant area with parti-cular emphasis...on the locations of streams, ditches,'nd drainage structures. Where any drainage structures, including roof openings, are relied upon to convey runoff from the. local Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP), provide pertinent details .of these structures, including their size, slope, elevation, and cross-sectional area.

Res onse:

.is not comp is time. Xt is expected aw-ings of .the final site gra e features will be

.developed b so that a contrac rk can of able Maximum Flood (PMF) produced by the Final site'r will assure that the r .xs carried e f away from the plant. of drains, and non-plant 're radioactive floor and e to an outfall proximately 1200 e s is carried by pipeline and at an elevation approximate om the min.

. eet

'Se'e response to NRC Question 371.016.

371. 8-.1

WNP-2

e. 371.017 (2.4.13.3)

The groundwater pathways analyses in this section are inconsistent both within the section and with other parts of the FSAR and ER.

a. The analyses for the two cases is impossible for the staff to follow because you gave no details on the physical situation'. For example in the "first case" analysis't is not clear whether you assumed saturated or, unsaturated flow in the reg'ion above the water table. In the second case analysis the physical situation you envision is not at aLL clear. Furthermor er.neither case appears to be directly solved by the equations on page

13) - Please elaborate extensively on the 2.4"40'Amendment physical situations and how they were modeled.

b. Values of physical parameters of the groundwater flow disagree'idely with r eported vaLues in other parts of section,2.4.13 of the FSAP, and 2.4.2 of the ER. For examples you used an effective porosity of 0.2 in your transport analysis- The ERr page 2.4-8i Amendment 2r estimates that available porosity of the glaciofluvial sediments is between 0.048 and 0.11'nd the average effective porosity is 0.09.

The values of permeability of 50.2 ft/day which you used appear to be much too Low. Values of permeability for the glaciofluvial sediments are reported elsewhere in the FSAR and ER to range from 1i200 to 12i000 ft/day.

The actual migration of chemical and and radioisotope plumes from fuel reprocessing at the Hanford reservation strongly indicates that groundwater movement i.s substantially greater than your estimates. A rough estimate of pLume movement based on figure 2.4 indicates that your estimates of groundwater movement are too Low by at Least'an order of magnitude. Groundwater mounding at the disposal operation would account for only a small fraction of the plume movement. PLease revise your migration esti'mates to take these data into account.

ID I

WNP -2

Response

Subsections 2.4.13.3 and 15.7.3 have been revised to eliminate confusion regarding the postulated accident event and apparent inconsistencies between sections. The hydr aul.ic conductivities of the unconfined aqui fer vary greatly over the Hanford Site As suggested-by the questioni plumes from the 200 Area move through soils with conductivities exceeding 10r000 ft/day.

Howevers the aquifer down gradient from the Supply System projects has a hydraulic conductivity" on the order of 100 ft/day ~ Refer to Figure 2.4-35 (as amended).*

• Attached

WNP-2 P24ENDNENT NO. 1 July 1978 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) t!umber Title 2.4-33 Nell Hydrographs

2. 4-34 Nell Hydrographs

2. 4-35

2. 4-36 Reactor Building Roof Plan and Sections u~nw~/ d~

2. 5-1 Regional. Physiographic Map

2. 5-2 Regional Geologic 1'hap

2. 5-3 Regional Tectonic Elements Map

2. 5-4 Regional Geologic and Tectonic Hap 50 I'file Radius

2. 5-'5 Stratigraphic Chart

2. 5-6 Geologic Profiles A-A in the Site Region

2. 5-7 Geologic Profiles B-B in the Site Region

2. 5-8 Regional Aeromagnetic Map

2. 5-Sa Regional Yiap

2. 5-9 Regional Bouguer Gravity Anomaly I'.ap

2. 5-10 Comparison of Lithologic Units in the Site Region

2. 5-11 Geologic llap and Cross Sections of Gable Butte

2. 5-12 Geologic I'!ap and Cross Sections of Gable l~ountain 2.5-13 Geologic 'lap of Saddle Nountains-Nestern Portion

2. 5-14 Geologic >lap of Saddle Hountains-Eastern Portion

2. 5-15 Geologic Cross Sections at Saddle Mountains

2. 5-16 Geologic Nap of 1:anastash Ridge/Hanson Creek Structure

WNP-2 AMENDMENT NOo. 13 February 1981 2.4 13 , GROUNDWATER 2.4.13.1 Description and Onsite Use Subsurface soil conditions, across the site, have been classi-fied as follows:

a. Loose to medium dense< fine to coarse sand with scattered gravel (glaciofluvial sediments) .

b. Very dense, sandy gravel with interbedded sandy and silty layers (Ringold Formation, Middle Member).

1

c. Very dense, interbedded layers of sandy gravel silt and soft sandstone (Ringold Formation, Lower Member).

d. Basalt bedrock which forms the bedrock beneath the area.

2.4 29

MNP-2 AMENDMENT NO. l3 February 1 9 8 'l The lithologic character and water bearing properties of the geologic units occurring

~ ~ ~

in

~

the Hanford region are summarized in Table 2.4-8. In general, groundwater in the surficial sedi-

~

~<n ments occurs unconfined, although locally confined zones

~

exist. Mater in the basalt bedrock occurs mainly under con-9 fined conditions. ,Occasionally, the lower zone of the I ~+ Ringold Pormation occurs as a confined aquifer, separated from the overlying unconfined aquifer by thick clay beds Q + which possess a distinct hydraulic potential.'

QW The unconfined aquifer consists of both glaciofluvial sand

~

+~ + and gravel deposits and the Ringold,silts, clays and gravels.

% w 4 Since these materials are very heterogeneous, often greater,

~ lithologic differences occur within a given bed than between beds. q The unconfined aquifer bottom is the basalt bedrock in some areas and silt/clay zones of the Ringold Formation in other areas. Clearly the bottom of the unconfined aquifer. is not a continuous lithologic surface.

The Hanford Reservation contains over 2200 wells constructed from pre-.Hanford work days to the present (Reference 2.4-30)-

Approximately 600 of these wells are used for groundwater monitoring (Reference 2.4-30). Figure 2.4-24 identifies the well locations in. the Hanford Reservation as of September 1975. Figure 2.4-25 shows the December 1975 groundwater con-tour map. In general', the groundwater gradient resulting from groundwater flowing under the Reservation is the highest in the southwestern area toward Rattlesnake Mountain, and slopes toward the Hanford 200 Areas near the center of the 1 reservation.. Prom the 200 Areas the general slope in the gra- .

dient is toward northeast and southeast.

A groundwater contour map based .on the potential construction of the Ben Franklin Dam at approximately River Mile 348 is Dam'ts illustrated by Figure 2.4-26. The WNP-2 design basis ground-water level is based on the possible construction of the Ben Franklin Dam and is taken to be 420 feet MSL, whereas the most recent study indicates that the water table would be about 405 ft MSL (Reference 2.4-32). The Hydroelectric Ben Fran zn M

proposal was strongly contested by local groups and indivi-duals concerned with environmental protection and preservation. Additionally, the matter of the impact such a facility would have on the DOE Hanford Reservation was believed by some to preclude its construction. Finally,, the cost/benefit ratio was believed by many to be too low to make the project viable. The combination of the unresolved impedi-ments to the project has effectively, though not conclusively, 2.4-'30

WNP-2 AMENDMENT NOa 13 February 1981 relegated it to a very low. priority status. Planning studies for the project by the Corps of Engineers were suspended in 1969 and reinitiated in &83 as part of the development of a

'management plan for the Hanforn reach.

~A]rent

~ AlovaeR /f8l,

.2.4-30a

WNP-2 AMENDMENT NO 13 February 1981 Impermeable groundwater boundaries are the Rattlesnake Hills, Yakima Ridge, and Umtanum Ridge on the west and southwest sides of the Hanford Reservation. Gable Mountain and Gable Butte also impede the groundwater flow, as well as other small areas of basalt outcrop above the water table. The Yakima River recharges the unconfined aquifer along its reach from Horn Rapids to Richland. The Columbia River forms a hydraulic potential boundary which is a discharge boundary for the aquifer. The major source of natural recharge is precipita-tion on Rattlesnake Hills, Yakima .Ridge and Umtanum Ridge.

Minor changes would be expected in the groundwater elevations during the summer months because. of the charging stage of the Columbia River, which historically reaches peak flood stage in June. Because WNP-2 is logated about 3 miles from the river and because of the perr@ability characteristics and enormous volume of the Ringold Formation, there is a substan-tial time lag in changing water levels. For the same reasons, ~

the range in water table fluctuations is very small.

Natural recharge due to precipitation over the lowlands of the Hanford Reservation is not measurable as the evaporation potential during the summer months greatly exceeds total precipitation. Data on migration of moisture from natural precipitation in deep soils (below 30 feet) nohow movement rates less than 1/2-in./yr at one measurement site (References 2.4-29, 2.4-37 and 2.4-38). The major artificial recharge of ground water to the unconfined aquifer occurs near the Hanford 200 East and 2(tp West Areas. The large volume of process water (1.35x10 gallons) discharged to ground during 1944-1973 has caused the formation of significant groundwater mounds in the water table (Figures 2.4-27 and 2.4-28). Other local groundwater mounds formerly existed along the Columbia River. The present Hanford .100-N Area mound is the only one of these remaining. A minor recharge mound also exists at the Hanford 300 Area.

The unconfined aquifer is characterized by its hydraulic conductivity, the storage coefficient, and the effective porosity. The hydraulic conductivity relates the water flow quantity to the hydraulic potential gradient, while the effective porosity gives the fraction of porous media volume that is available to transmit ground water flow. The stbrage coefficient relates a change in the water table ele-vation to a change in the volume of water contained in the aquifer per unit horizontal area. Zn the limit of no delayed yield, the storage coefficient is equal to the effective poro-sity of the soil through which the water table moves. These paramet'ers vary widely. over the Hanford:Reservation.

2. 4-31

WNP-2 ANENDMEHT HO. l3 February 'l98'l

(?uolitatively the hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient, effective porosity distributions are a function of the 'nd different geologic formations in the unconfined aquifer, An-cestral Columbia River channels which incised in the Ringold Formation .are -now filled with more permeable glaciofluvial sediments. These channels have been identified extending eastward a1ong the northern and southern flanks of Gable Mountain and extending southeastward from the 200 East Area to the Columbia River ( These permeable chan-nels are reflected in the groundwater flow pattern of the z>-><

~ ~ QA m e at locations over the Hanford Reservation using a var'ety of echniqnes (References 2.4-29, 2.4-37 ane 2.4-38).

Exclu ing the clay zone, the values obtained for the R'old Format> n range between 6 to 200 ft/day. In sharp c trast

'are the ry large hydraulic conductivities of glac'ofluvial sediments, anging from 1,200 to 12,000 ft/day.

Field measure ydraulic conductivity values re determined from pump tests wells in the vicinity of e project site and are as follows (References 2.4-29, 2.4 7 and 2.4-38):

Field Me ured Hydraulic nductivity Values Mell Humber H dra ic Conductivit (ft/da )

699-2-3 30-280 unconfined aquifer 699-17-5 11 unconfined aquifer 699-10-E12-P 19-2 confined aquifer 699-14-E6-P 7-11 confined aquifer 699-20-E P 1 0-1.4 onfined aquifer 699-2 -E12-P '-10 con 'ned aquifer The storag coefficient is much more difficult to m sure in the fiel Values of 0.0008 to 0.2 were estimated fo the Hanford area from field tests, but the quality of these measu ments is poor (Reference 2.4-39). A typical rang of sto ge coefficient for unconsolidated sediments. is 0.05 to

0. . No field measurements of effective porosity have been 2.4-32'

guantitative measurem ts of the hydraulic conductivity of the unconfined aquifer have been the Hanford Reservation using a variety of techniques:

pumping tests; specific capacity tests; and tracer tests. The mosL common method has been the pumping tests. Values obtained for the Ringold Forma-tion range between 10 to 650 ft/day with a median of about 130 ft/day. In sharp contrast, are the very large hydraulic conductivities of glaciofluvial sediments, ranging from 1,200 ft/day (Reference 2.4-39).

O )OOOO The storage coefficient is much more difficult to measure in the field and estimates are, therefore, less common. For the unconfined aquifer, estimated of the storage coefficient have ranged from 0.01-0.1 (Reference 2.4 - %').

An. areal estimate of 0.11 has been provided for the 200 West Area based on the growth of groundwater mounds (Referencesi2..4-8$ 'nd 2.4 - W). The median specific yield (effective porosity) has been estimated by various researchers at Hanford to range from 4.85 to 115; "most commonly (Refernce 2.4 -Xf). "I it is a'ssumed to be 10Ã

WNP-2 AMENDMENT NO. 4 s

June 1979 Only 90 wells on the Hanford Reservation have b'een drilled to basalt. Thus data on the confined aquifers in the basalt flows are limited and more would have to be gathered to fully characterize the confined aquifers.

The plant is located on glaciofluvial outwash sands and gravels which are about 50 feet thick. Below this layer occurs very dense gravel. Sandy gravel occurs in a sequ-ence approximately 200 feet thick which is assumed to be member of the Ringold Formation. The lower member of the'iddle the Ringold Formation consists of a very compact, interbedded gravel, sand, silt and clay and extends down to a depth of about 500-525 feet. Basaltic bedrock underlies the lower Ringold member, at approximately 550 feet depth.

The water table is about 60 feet below the ground surface level at WNP-2. The water table elevation is about 378 + 4 feet MSL and appears to be stable. The effective bottom of the unconfined aquifer .is assumed to be at about 220-260 feet MSL at the top of the lower Ringold Formation. Groundwater potentials from the lower Ringold and from the basalt water bearing zones are about 25 feet higher than that of the un-confined aquifer. Test borings down to 925 feet reveal there are water bearing zones 'in the lower basalt flows and sedi-mentary interbeds at WNP-2. Piezometric level in basalt is 10 feet above unconfined water table and hence artesian.

Under the WNP-2 site the unconfined groundwater is moving easterly toward the Columbia River, the nearest discharge e

aquifer indicate that the potential gradients at the proposed site are oriented in the same general direction as those of the unconfined aquifer.

C~ &dec&

Three water supply wells are located on the WNP-2 site4 2'A8,2, W ~ Two onsite wells draw from the unconfined aquifer in the Ringold formation and a third well penetrates the confined aquifer in the underlying basalt flows.

these well+'upplg potable/sanitary water requirements and providewater to support construction activities (concrete, control, pipe flushing, fire suppression, etc.). Well water consump'tion for these purposes is not expected to exceed 10,000 d for the balance of construct'. PeaMhe

'ust rovide makeup water for potable and demineralize water system during out'ages. The design is for a peak requirement of 250 m although avera e usa e should be less than 20 gpm. When the p ant zs opera-ting, norma wa er supp y wr e from the river and the s4s/o wellf will be maintained in the standby mode+

2.4-35 .

WNP-2 AMENDMRNT NQ. 4 June 3.971 2.4.13.2 Sources Regional use of .the unconfined aquifer is at three locations.

The first is at the DOE's Fast, Flux Test Facility construc-tion site, located about 3 miles southwest of the WNP-2 site a- shown in Figure 2.1-3. Groundwater to this construction site is supplied from two wells and is used for sanitary and operation purposes. Haximum expected usage rate is between 2 million and 2.5 million gal/month. No data is available on drawdown tests performed on the FFTF water supply wells 699-S0-7 and S0-8.

The second location of ground water use is the WNP-1/4 site about one mile east of WNP-2. Water is drawn from two wells for construction, sanitary, and potable water requirements.

Usage rate is approximately 250,000 gal/month.

The third location is the WNP-2 site with the wells described in 2.4.13.1. The two wells which draw from the unconfined aquifer (699-13-lA and 1B) are 234 and 244 feet deep. Draw-down tests for each well" showed 22 and 91 feet of drawdown respectively, at pumping rates -of 250 gpm and test durations of about 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />. The third well (695 feet deep) is sealed.

from the unconfined aquifer and draws from confined water in the basalt. Drawdown on thzs well'as 169 feet at. a pumping rate of 275 gpm with a test duration of 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />.

Water table contours in the vicinity of WNP-2 site can be seen in Figure 2.4-28. The aquifer is assumed to be isotzopic, therefore, flow occurs along instantaneous streamlines per-pendicular to the equipotential contours. The gioundwater flow is toward the discharge boundary at the Columbia River to the east of the site. The hydraulic potential gradient in this area i.s about~+&~ +feet/mile in the unconfined aquifer.

As described in 2.4.13.1, recharge and discharge of riverbank storage occur along the Columbi.a River with daily fluctuations superimposed on the seasonal variations in river stage. Hydro-gzaphs of wells in the vicinity of .the plant site'(Figure 2.4-33) show that riverbank stozage is not detectable even in years of extreme spring runoff at the two wells that are about one mile from the riverbank. Thus no seasonal reversa-bility of the gradients driving the groundwater flow occurs.

ln other areas of the Eanford Reservation, the seasonal fluc-tuations of groundwater levels from riverbank recharge can be detected 3-4 miles inland from the riverbank.,

I

2. 4-3'6

The historical well hydx'ographs for the uppermost confined aquifer in the vicinity of the plant site are given in Figurc:

2.4-34. Hell number 699-20-E12-P shows a rather rapid rise of the confined aquifer potential in 1962-65. It has been postulated that this rise reflects recharge to the confined zones from irrigation across the river in the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project. The hydraulic potential in the uppermost confined aquifer near the plant site is presently about 390 feet MSL, which is about 25 feet higher than the overlying unconfined aquifer.

The effects of the groundwater withdrawal at the WNP-2 site have been estimated to be local. No drawdown has been detected n in the nearest observation wells, numbers 699-17-5 and 699-9-E2. The latter well is perfor'ated'ver multiple aquifers so it does not give a representative measurement of the water table elevation. The radius of influence (defined to be the radius at which a 0.1 ft. drawdown exists) of the WNP-2 wells has been estimated to be about 3500-4500 feet. This is based on the ten months of high rate of withdrawal during compaction operations taking into account the ambient water table gradient. The subsequent reduction in withdrawal flow rate to 25% of the darly value would shrink the x'adius of influence considerably.

There is no groundwater recharge area within the influence of

~

~

the plant. The 60 foot depth'rom the land surface to the water table and the arid condition of sediments above the water table make it virtually impossible to detect any recharge from precipitation over this area.

2.4.13.3 Accidental Effects material to the ground at the site area were investi

'lly There are two condensate storage tanks, 45 and 35 feet high, protected by a sei t in diameter designed dike.

Water from these tanks is deliv by means of a 16 inch diameter steel pipe to th rhine generator building and a 24 inch diameter pi the service building.

Water sto xn these tanks contains radionuclides, and the fail of any of the delivery pipes outside the dike could

2. 4-38

E

, 2.4.13.3 Accident Effects The accident scenario evaluated here involves a postulated rupturea De-

!~ 0~

contaminate<" Solution Concentrated Waste Tank within the.Radwaste Build-ind (see Figure 11.2-1). The released effluent is then assumed to reach the soil environment outside the building and to percolate to the water table unimpeded. Upon entering the groundwater, the p'ostulated radwaste J

release is dispersed, sorbed, decayed, and diluted along the potential groundwater pathway from the~ pl1hf'n towards the Columbia River.

the unconfined (water-table) aquifer,, there are no down gradient groundwater users between the WNP-2 site and the Columbia River. However, the construction water needs at WNP-1/4 are supplied by two deep wells that withdraw groundwater -from the uppermost confined aquifer downgradient from the WNP-2 Radwaste Building. During operation of WNP-1/4, these wells will be maintained in an stanby mode. The uppermost screens-in. these-wells-wre'-'----

about 240 feet below the ground surface in the.lower Ringo'id Formation. The effective bottom of the unconfined aquifer is generally assumed to be at the top of the lower Ringold Formation or about 200 feet below the surface.

Thus, in all likelihood, any liquid radioactive spill to the ground water beneath the WNP-2 Radwaste Building would travel through the unconfined aquifer the Columbia River. However, for conservati~,- 5'owards analyses of postu-lated radionuclide movement assume that the WNP-1/4 wells draw from the un-confined aquifer. The remainder of this subsection provides estimates of travel times of critical radionuclides to move from the postulated spill to receptors and the corresponding concentration reduction factors.

For an assumed one-dimensional groundwater movement, the groundwater travel time, t, is the path length, L, divided by the groundwater velocity (see page velocity), u.

The groundwater velocity is the Darcy (apparent) velocity divided by the effective porosity.

u=Ki/ne

0 where K is the lateral permeability (hydraulic conductivity) of the aquifer, i is the hydraulic gradient, and ne is the effective porosity of the aquifer md i:eri al .

For computational purposes, a conservative value for permeability of 500 ft/day was se1eted to represent the unconfined aquifer located. in the Ringoid Formation%.

&omSubsection 2.4a13.1,,effective porosity is taken 0.10.'rom Figure 2.4-28, the gradient in the water table aquifer between the plant and the Columbia River is about 8 or 9 ft/mile, and is taken conservatively as 10 ft/mile.

Using the above parameter values, groundwater velocities were computed to be 10 ft/day. With path lengths of 3.4 miles to 'the river and 1.0 mile to the WNP-1/4 wells, the respective travel times are estimated to be ~ years and l ~W years. ga2 Generally, the critical radionuclides of concern for a postulated liquid radwaste spill are tritium', 3H, strontium, 9 Srs and cesium 13 Cs. These three radionuclides are fairly representative'in terms of sorption characteristics, of those found in liquid radwaste tanks, since tritium does not sorb onto soil particles at all, strontium is an intermediate sorber, and cesium strongly sorbs to soil particles. The half-life of tritium is 12.3 years, Mhereas those of. 90sr and 137Cs are 29.0, and 30.1 years, respectively.

The travel time, ti, for a particular radionuclide moving through groundwater depends upon the velocity, ui, of the radionuclide tL

~ ~ L/u-I.

ere the radionuclide ~

velocity is

~ ~

ui r fu in which rf is the velocity reduction factor attributable to sorption rf 1/(1 + Pb Kd) n In this equation> P b is the bulk density of the aquifer material, n is the total porosity, and Kd is the equilibrium distribution coefficient for a particular radionuclide The bulk density and total porosity are further

~

related physically as Pb = Rs (1-n) where Rs is the real specific gravity oz particle density of the so?id particles in the aquifer media.

\

~ tvt ii~e particle density, R:, for Hanford soils is usually taken to be constant at 2.65 ~/cm3.( ') The bulk density> p b, of Hanford soils 'ha: been determined to range from about 1.5 gm/cm to about 1.75 me ian value of about le65 gm/cm .(

gm/cm3, with a

> For the median value of bulb h nsity, the corresponding total porosity is about 0.377.

Using the above values for bulk density and total are~~ a&s4 porosity, radionucLide travel time, ti, through the groundwater beneath WNP-1/4 can be expressed as (1 + 4.4 Kd) t

/JP (i.o~)

9~

PoS >go su.l P QOO The minimum

~ concentration reduction factor, Cgymin, along tlie centerline of the contaminarlt plume from an irlstantnneous point source is given eyi CRFmin ~ Co ~ (4~ t) / (Kx K Kz)

! 's'-l-.--ts 2,4-57 C 2V for an effluent volume, V, with a specific gravity of 1.0 and an initial concentration, Co, released to soil with dispersion coefficients, Kx, Kyg Kz>,in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. This expression neglects the phenomena of sorption and decay which will be considered later.

lit 4

It is generally accepted that the dispersion coefficients are proportional co groundwater velocity for unidirectional flow, i.e.

xgypz ~ ~ xpygz where>~9>are constants called dispersivities which are a function of the nonhomogeneity of the material. The range in dispersiv'ities, in homogeneous granular aquifers may approach 1000 cm (33 ft).( Substituting this relationship into the above expression for concent tion reduction, and noting that travel time is determined by path lengt and velocity, results

+Ptcwc 2.4-5S CRFmin (4~L) ~ (

2V For the conservative condition of x ~ y z = 1.0, then (4 m') ~2 min,

~+~JpgTg/5 gjp g gpss g 5.

Mhen sorption and decay are included, the concentration reduction is given zg~s CRF (4m'L)3/2 (~x z)~ e 2V = ~ ~

t in which X, is the radionuclide decay constant defined in terms of the half-life, T4, of a particular radionuclide as X

ln 2 The concentration reduction factor can be expressed as CRP CRF '+ t.i))

The exponential term accounts for the affects of sorption and decay. The only effect of sorption on concentration reduction is to increase the travel time, thus allowing more time for decay-

77m'l r.ox'Sxrd

'.'81 l8

~X/a &EX /d gf Ben Franklin Dam were ever constructed, the concentration reduction factors at the river bank would be even larger than those noted above- This would be true, because the groundwater gradient (thus, the groundwater velocity) would be decreased as shown in Figure 2.4~.

HNP-2 Ai>FNn>

.February 1981 e

2 X e E 2K (1+e)

K permeability (50.2 ft./day from Figu 2.4-35) void 1+e = 1 e P

= Porosity in percent (ave ge value used 20%)

= distance in feet

= time in days

= hydrauli gradient (10 ft./mile Reference 2.4-7a)

Substitution of P nd i yields:

X P 1 k In the first case, the area ponded would have a diameter of approximately 2, 0 square feet. For the first arrival of accidental rele s'es at the Columbia River, 42.8 years; a it would take about for the last 48.4 years. .In the second case, it will take 15.2 years for the first arrival. For both cases, the ong travel time would result in activities re-leased to the Columbia River which would be orders of magnitu below the permissible concentrations specified in App ndix B, Table II of 10 CFR Part 20.

The e are no other groundwater users in the dient to the Columbia River from vicinity .down g WNP-2 site that could be 2.4.13.4 Monitoring or Safeguard Requirements The only release of water to the ground will be theM.=ee~b-effluent from the ~ T of waste water ' Approximately',600 gal/day be discharged from the discharge rate will not produce a significant local rise

~~ ~r'his

WNP-2 AMENDMENT NO ~ 13 February 1981 2.4-32 Harty, Harold, "The Effects of Ben Fran3clin Dam on the Hanford Site," PNL-2821, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, April 1979.

I

2. 4-33 Isaacson, R.E., L.E. Browned, R.W. Nelson and E.R. Roetman, "Soil Moisture Transport and Arid Site Uadose Zones," ARH-SA-169, January, 1974.

2.4-34 Hsieh, J.J.C., et. al;, "Lysimeter Experiment,"

Descri tion and Pro ress Re ort on Neutron Measurements, BNWL-1711, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 1972.

2.4-35 Hsieh, J.J.C., et. al., "A Study of Soil Water Potential and Temperature in Hanford Soils,"

BNWL-1712, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 1972.

2.4-36 Bear, J., Zaslavsky, D., and Irmay, D., "Physical Principles of Water Percolation and Seepage," Arid Zone'Research 29,,UNESCO, 1968, P.465.

2.4-37 Bierschenk,, W.H., "Hydraulic Characteristics of Hanford Aquifers," HW-48916, March 3, 1957.

2.4-38 Honstead', J.F., McConiga, M.W., and Raymond, J-R.,

"Gable Mountain Ground Water Tests," HW-34532, January 21, 1955.

2.4-39 2-4-40 Environmental Monitoring Report on the Status of Groundwater Beneath the Hanford Site, January-December 1975, BNWL-2034, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, January 1977.

2.4-41 Bramson, O-P.E., and Corley, J.P., "Hanford Environ-mental Surveillance Routine Program," Master Schedule CY 1973, BNWL-B-234, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, December, 1972.

2.4-42 Newcomb, R.C., "Some Preliminary Notes on Ground Water in the Columbia Basa3.t," Northwest Sciences, Vol. 33, 1, 1959, pp. 1-38. ~ sl g ~~ ~ wA W AWED'~4 >4 rd~J'~-

(gg~~)- zg-s) + ~~4~/~ c~m, 4c ~M)

~) octa i'll.

)

WNP-2 AMENDMENT NOo 13 February 1981 LaSala, A.M., Jr., Doty, G.C., and,Pearson, "A Preliminary Evaluation of Regional Ground Water F.S.,

Plow in South-Central Washington," U.S.G.S. Open

~a 2.4-44 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Volume Public Power Supply System, WNP-2.6,'ashington 2.4-45 Parker, G.G., and Piper, A.N.; "Geologic and Hydro-logic Features of the Richland Area, Washington<

Relevant to Disposal of Waste at the Hanford - Directed Operations of the Atomic Energy Commission," Interior Report 1, U.S.G.S. Re ort to Atomic Ener Commission, pages, 5 Illus., 1949. '01 2.4-46 Newcomb, R.C., Strand, J.R. and Frank, F.J., "Geology and Ground Water Characteristics of the Hanford Re-servation of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,"

Professional Paper 4 717, U.S.G.S., Washington, 1972.

2. 4-47 Kipp, K.L. and Nudd, R.D., "Selected Water Table

. Contour Maps for the Well Hydrographs and Hanford

. Reservation, 1944-1973,." BNWL-1797, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

~aEN -.

2.4-48 n 2.4-49 DELETED 2.5-50 DELETED 2; 5-51 De~icen of Small Dame, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1977.

2.4-52 "Water Surface Profiles", Vol. 6 Hydrologic Engin-eerin Methods for Water Resources Develo ment, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, July 1975.

2.,4-53 Shore Protection Manual,,U.S. Army Corps of Engin eers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1975.

2 '-'48

gr Serne, R.J., Routson, R.C., and Cochran, D.A., "Experimental Methods for Obtaining PERCOL Model Input and Verification Dal-.t",

BNWL-1721, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1973, p. 24.

Rouston, R.C. and Serne, R.J., "Experimental Support Studies for the PERCOL and Transport Models", BNWL-1719, Ba'ttelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1972, pp. 38, B-l, and B-2.

%7 2 d-~7 Carslaw, H.S., and Jaeger, J C, Conduction of Heat in Solids>

Oxford University Press, London, England, 1959.

Codell, R.B , and Schreiber, D.L.> "NRC Models for Evaluating the Transport of Radionuclides in Groundwater", Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Pergamon Press, 1979, pp. 1193-1212.

lit LAYER+ l K < ~ 4.o4 FTy'DA.Y c4 0

Ql fA LAYER~2 p S.l 2 FgT DAY 0

O LAYER +3 Kp 50.2 FTQDAY wATRQ .TAMIL.K EL. &so'-o" LAYE +4

]hDJU STUD FROth, 20-0 sauRcF'- REFERKMCE 7w MASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM I ER FIGURE S AREA 2.4-35 NUCLEAR PROJECT ND. 2

P

~n lrh l ~Af 0

~ wr 1~

Qj 1 5

}

I d AM+

KLIN COUNTY UNT

'I I

I n~~ ~ a.. 5,~>On 1'099p

~/

~

/

5 aJ.~ p

~l

~

":: I. ~ P lo 5 "5 I puce lg

/,I re II

( la UM

~ (p pp!

f

/ ]'g..:"

8

~

o o

/ ~ . ~ '

.r C 0

Iq

~ tOO ..~~or ~p. ~g o.

~DNI 960

~.t W'HI 2 ') .i'"'-"-.:

<." S f.

~Io~

X ~

d hlfng 'jt .li'" ' 43 2

4~

U h I

i~<

i;g ho I oli('

lie a) +

q)4 1; 3( .o qf C g r/

"I C

~) /o'~

1

) ~

I(

0 +0

'I 1 j f.

5.r

/~

I; I l 4'~ I.:I 4"<e' 5 g r ~

rl '5 Cs j

'5 c.

' 5 I

r v~

N n City I, Chd A orP ~ ~

~~co . ~M SH+ ~< Z.g Zy MASHIHGTOH PUBLIC POMER SUPPLY SYSTEH

~+AcfC,/C FIGURE 2.4-35 HUCLEAR PROJECT HO. 2 PfbUn7Vn7ES /Af 7VE LAIC% ail/FD +6/WSC

~Groundwater at the site did not influence construction, since the water table was below the limits of excavations.

Furthermore, the groundwater at the site will not affect the foundation of the plant structures during their operational life, provided no changes will occur from other potential future.projects. For a discussion of the effects of a rise in the water table on the foundation stability of the WNP-2 plant structure, refer to 2.5.4.8.

wells Fi ure 2.4-24 identifies the well'ocations in the Hanford Reservation as of about September 1975. Figure 2.4-25 shows the December 1975 groundwater contour map. In addition, water level data were obtained from observation wells installed in test borings during exploration for the WNP-2 site facilities. Table 2.5-10 tabulates the elevation of the water table measured from April, 1971 through July, 1972 in observation wells at

.the WNP-2 site. Based on these data, the water level beneath the site is at an elevation of about 380 feet and appears.to be stabilizing at or near this level. In January, 1944, the water level beneath the WNP-2 site was at an elevation of about 368 feet (see Figure 2.4-27).

Fluctuation of the water table at the plant site due to river stage changes on the Columbia River or to pumpage from water wells should be minimal. Hydrographs of wells in the plant vicinity show that effects of riverbank storage were not detected, even in years of extreme spring runoff.

wate vel data, is presented on Figure 2.4-28. The f' indicates t groundwater Columbia moves in an easterly d ion from the site t s the River, w, xs'he closest discharge area. The aulic potenti radient is about 10 to 13 feet per mile. Th d xc conductivity of the unconfined aquifer system i g ariable, depending largely on the hydros ~graphic frame of the system.

Base on pumping s of wells located in th 'cinity of project ar e hydraulic conductivity of the un ined aquxf efer to 2.4.13 and 2.5.1.2.6 for additional discussion of groundwater conditions.

2. 5-138

0 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Pacae 15.7.2.5.1 Design Basis Analysis 15.7-23 15-7 2 5.1.1 Fission Product Release 15.7-23 15.7.2.5.1.2 Fission Product Transport to the Environment 15.7-23 15.7.2.5.1.3 Results 15.7-23 15.7.2.5.2 Realistic Analysis 15.7-24 15.7.2.5.2.1 Fission Product Release 15.7-24 15.7.2.5.2.2 Fission Product Transport to the Environment 15.7-24 15.7.2.5.2.3 Results 15.7-24 15.7.3 POSTULATED RADIOACTIVE RELEASES DUE TO LIQUID RADNASTE TANK FAILURE 15.7-31 15.7.3.1 Identification of Causes and Frequency Classification 15.7-.31 15.7.3.1.1 Identification of .Causes 15.7-31 15.7.3.1.2 Frequency Classification 15.7-31 15.7.3.'2 Sequence of Events and System Operation 15.7-31 15.7.3.2.1 Sequence of Events 15.7-31 15.7.3.2.2 Identification of Operator Actions 15.7-32 15.7.3.2.3 System Operation 15.7-32 15.7.3.2.4 The Effects of. Single Failures and Operator Errors 15.7-32 15.7.3.3 Core and System Performance 15;7-32 15.7.3.4 Barrier Performance 15.7-32 15.7.3.5 Radiological Consequences 15.7-33 ent 1~r;7 3 1 5-,Liv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Pacae

~Kss

'5.7.4 FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT 15 ~ 7-39 15.7.4.1 Identification of Causes and Frequency Classification 15. 7-39 15.7.4.1.1 Identification of Causes 15. 7-39 15.7.4.1.2 Frequency Classification 15.7-39 15.7.4.2 Sequence of Events and Systems Operation 15. 7-39 15.7.4.2.1 Sequence of Events 15.7-39 15.7.4.2.2 Identification of Operator Actions 15.7-41 15.7.4.2.3 System Operation 15.7-41 15.7.4.2.4 The Effects of Single Failures and Operator Errors 15.7-42 15.7.4.3 Core and System Performance 15.7-42 15.7.4.3.1 Mathematical Model 15.7-42 15.7.4.3.2 Input Parameters and Initial Conditions 15. 7-43 15.7.4.3.3 Results 15. 7-44 15.7.4.3.3.1 Energy Available 15 '.-44

• 15-Lv

I' TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

TABLES Number Tiele 15.7-9 Liquid Radwaste System Failure (Design Basis Analysis) Activity Release to Environment .(Curies) 15 '-10 Liquid Radwaste System Failure (Design Basis Analysis) Radiological Effects 15.7-11 Liquid Radwaste System Failure (Realistic Analysis) Activity Release to Environment (Curies) 15.7-12 Liquid Radwaste System Failure (Realistic Analysis) Radiological Effects 15.7-13 Liquid Radwaste Tanks Failure .

Parameters d And Coll CRh icos

'DE 15.7-14 Ba and Limit 15.7-15

(

15.7-16 Fuel Handling Accident Parameters Tabulated for Postulated Accident Analysis 15.7-17 Fuel Handling Accident (Design Basis Analysis) Activity Airborne in Secondary Containment (Curies) 15.7-18 Fuel Handling Accident (Design Basis Analysis) Activity Released to the Environment (Curies) 3.5-Lix

15.7.3 POSTULATED RADIOACTIVE RELEASES DUE TO LIQUID RADWASTE TANK FAILURE 15.7.3.1 Identification of Causes and Frequency'lassification

.15.7.3.1.1 Identification of Causes The liquid radwaste tanks are constructed to strict engineer-ing codes and standards and to the uniform building code seismic requirements. These tanks operate at atmosphere pres-sure and low temperatures. A positive action interlock system is provided to prevent inadvertant opening of a drain valve because of operator error. Accordingly, the possibility of a 'complete tank failure or drainage is considered small.

An unspecified event is postulated to cause the complete re-lease of the average radioactivity inventory in the tank con-tains.ng the largest quantities of significant radionuclides in the liquid radwaste systep.'he tank postulated to rupture is one of the 6oncentratCQ Waste Vanks Z-15.7.3. 1. 2 Frequency Classif ication This accident is categorized as a limiting fault.

15.7.3.2 Sequence of Events and System Operation 15.7.3.2.1 Sequence of Events The sequence of events expected to occur is as follows:

Se uence of Events Ela sed Time

a. Event begins-failure occurs

b. Area radiation alarms < 1 min.

alert plant personnel P

c. Operator action begins 10 min.

15.7-31

WNP-2 l5. 1.3.2.2 Identification of Operator Actions The operator would>upon receiving the alarms, alert personnel to evacuate affected areas of the radwaste building and isolate

.the radwaste building ventilation system.

15.7.3.2.3 System Operation Failure of a concentrated waste tank does not require a shut-down nor does it impair 'a safe shutdown. It will lead to limited operation of the concentrated waste system using the remaining tank.

The liquid c'ontents of this tank will be contained by an

• unlined 18 inch high concrete dike around the radwaste tank area. Floor drain sump pumps would receive a high water level alarm, activate automatically> and remove the spill liquid.

15.7.3.2.4 The Effects of Single Failures and Operator Errors This event has been analyzed without taking credit for any expected operator action or system operation discussed in 15.7.3.2.2 and 15.7.3.2.'3; therefore, a discussion of SEF or SOE is not 'applicable. ~

II If credit were taken for the expected operator action and system operation, the radiological consequences of this event would be less severe than those presented in .Tables 15.7-14 and 15.7-15;

15. 7.3. 3 Core and System Perf ormance The failure of this liquid radwaste system component does not directly affect the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS).

It will lead to decoupling of NSSS with the subject system.

This failure has no applicable effect on the reactor core or the NSSS safety performance.

15.7.3.4 Barrier Performance This ev'ent does not involve any containment barrier The integrity except the tank itself and the radwaste building. dike around the radwaste tanks and the portion of the radwaste to Seismic I criteria.

building housing the tanks is built building go credit is taken for the>radwaste in recontaining 1'.5. 7-32

15.7.3.5 Radiological Consequences

/'ccident:

a0 The first is based on conservative assumpti s con-sidered to be acceptable to the NRC for th purpose of determining adequacy of the plant des n to meet 10 CFR Part 20 guidelines. This analys's referred to as the "Design Basis Analysis".

b. The second is based on realistic ass ptions re fleeting expected radiological con quences.

This analysis is referred to as t e "Realistic Analysis".

15.7.3.5.1 Design Basis Analysis The design basis analysis is based NRC Standard Review Plan 15.7.3. The specific models, ssumptions and the program used for computer analysis are de cribed.in Reference 15.7.4.

Specific values of parameters us d in the analysis are pre-sented in Table 15.7-13.

15.7.3.5.1.1 Fission Produc Release It is assumed that each 1'id radwaste tank contains the inventory of radioactive aterial presented in 11.2 following correction to be consis ent with an offgas release rate of 350,000 pCi/sec after 0 minutes decay. The tank with the largesse inventory, of adioactive materials is assumed to fail releasing the entir contents of this tank (equal to 80% of the tank capacity) to the radwaste enclosure.

15.7.3.5.1.2 F'ion Product Transport to the Environment The dispersio mechanism for the accidental release of radio-active liqu' to the site grounds is described in 2.4.13.3.

The time etween the postulated tank rupture and the first release f radioactive material to the river is 42.8 years.

The di tion factor (DF) afforded by the river is in excess of on million. This. can be shown by comparing the minimum lice sed river .flow, 36,000 cfs, with the volume of the tank,

>1 ft , which would slowly seep into the river. This sion.,

15.7-33

The hypothetical radwaste tank failure'was evaluated using conserv.ii v~;

assumptions which are described in Subsection 2.4.13.3. Important among these are the assumptions of no containment in the Radwaste 8uilding ;~>~

unimpeded flow vertically through 50-60 feet of sands and gravel, I'ho results of this conservative analysis are given in Table 15.7-3.

It can be seen that the calculations show the strontium concentration exceeding the unrestricted area limitation at the HNP-1/4 wells. It is important to note that these wells are a temporary water supply and are under the control of the Supply System. Should a spill occur at MNP-2 there will be ample time to assess the severity and extent of contamination.

Additionally, it was noted in Subsection 2.4.13.3 that these wells most likely draw from a deeper confined aquifer.

Concentration at the river bank will be immediately diluted by the river flow. The nearest surface water users are several miles downstream.

3.'he calculated concentrations and the concentration limit s forth in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II@ Column 2 a presented in Table 15.7-14.

15.7.3.5.2 Realistic Analysis The realistic analysis is based on a realistic b conserva-tive, assessment of this accident. The specif 'c models, assumptions and the program used for compute evaluation are described in Reference 15.7-4. Specific v ues of parameters used in the evaluation are presented in ble 15.7-13.

15.7.3.5.2.1 Fission Product Releas The fission product release is t same as that identified in 15.7.. 3.5. 1. 1 except that it of 100,000 pCi/sec. after 30 nutes decay.

is sed on an of fgas release rate 15.7.3.5..2.2 Fission Pro ct Transport to the Environment The dispersion meehan'

~

for the accidental release of radio-

~ ~

active liquids to t site grounds is described in 2.4.13.3.

s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The time between he postulated tank rupture and the first

~

release of rad active material to the river is 42.8 years.

~ ~

The DF affor d by the river is assumed to be one million.

No credit 'aken for groundwater dispersion.

15.7.3. .2.3 Results'he alculated concentrations and the concentration limit set ~

f th in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table XX, Column 2 are

15. 7-34

TABLE 15.7-13 LIQUID RADWASTE TANKS FAILURE PARAMETERS QND Caf(CElCRA'004 Sig alist Bas'm

's An As xs

's Data and assumptions used estimate radioactive source f

to

~ ~~Fr pj~

~ere+~ ci 7M/lZ-a.

contains the invento f 7'~

4.D/g(i/Afjrgyg 4lkgFRIZ fC 3 S/.

radioactive mate 'resented in 11.2 fol ing correction to be istent with an off-II. Data and'assumptions used to estimate activity released A. Containment Leak rate (%/day) NA B. Secon'dary containment leak rate

(%/day) NA C. Valve movement times NA D. Absorption and filtration NA efficiencies (1) Organic Iodine NA (2) Elemented Iodine NA (3) Particulate Iodine NA (4) Particulate fission products NA N 15.7-35

TABLE 15.7-13 (Continued)

Sig Rea 's c Bas Ana sum 'ons A umtio s E. Recirculation system parameters (1) Flow rate NA (2) Mixing Efficiency, NA (3) Filter Efficiency NA F. Containment spray'parameters H.

(flow rate, drop s'ize, etc.)

G.. Containment volumes

~ &ther pertinent and assumptions b

tion factor data Sue. ~

NA 2 <.l3:3 III. Concentration Data

~~~ce k5-.~

method Ta~ Tabb Ca) e~~iIw~.

(~6'J~) (j'Q/~ Cg4l~)

Sg

~4S

/D /id,.

/7p'td e 7 gQ Nlg

~gg /0 B

QA/8

~

BP l0

/77~ lZ x/0 Zygo

/0 SAC'ad ~~ +ck 8~ 7a/ic Z~ Cxgsur 2

15. 7-36

TABLE 15.7-"4 LIQUID RADWASTE TANK FAILURE (DESIGN BASIS ALYSXS)

CONCENTRATION AND C CENTRATION LIMIT pCi/ml)

Calculated Calculated Concentrat n Concentration After 42. in surface Concentration I~soho es Years D a Limit: <

Co-60 9. 8E 9. SE-13 5E-5 Sr-90 4 6E-5 4. 6E-11 3E-7 Cs-134 5.3E-11 5. 3E-17 9E-6 Cs-137 5.3E-5 5.3E-ll 2E-5 4.2E-5 4.2E-ll , 3E-3

1) See 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 15.7>>37

C'b WNP-2 TABLE 15 ~ 7-15 LIQUID RADWASTE TANKS FAILURE (REALISTIC ANALYSIS)

CONCENTRATION AND CONCENTRAT N LIMIT (pCi/ml)

Calculated Cal lated Concentration C centration After 42.8 surface Concentration I~seto es Limit(1)

Co-60 2.8E-7 2. 8E-13 5E-5 Sr-90 1.3E-5 1.3E-ll 3E-7 Cs-134 1.5E- 1.5E-17 9E>>6 Cs-137 l. -5 1.5E-ll 2E-5 H-3 .2E-5 1.2E-ll 3E-3 Se 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 15.7-38

15. 7. 6 REFERENCES 15.7-1 Stancavage, P. P. and E. J. Morgan, "Conservative Radiological Accident Evaluation The CCNAC0 1 Code,". NED0-21143, March 1976.

15.7-2 Nguyen, D., "Realistic Accident Analysis for.

General Electric Boiling Hater Reactor the RELAC Code and User's Guide," NED0-21142, to be issued.

15.7-3 N. R. Horton, W. A. Hilliams, J. W. Holtzclaw, "Analytical Methods for Evaluating the Radio' logical Aspects of the General Electric Boiling Hater Reactor," APED-5756, March 1969.

DEL$WED 15.7-4 ~ g 1'5.7-71

l T'

W0jp-2 371. 018 ul timate Heat Sink In order for the staff to perform an independent analysis~

please provide the following information on nozzle characteristics:

a. drop diameter distribution at operating pressures'.

patter n of drops leaving spray nozzles (e.g.i heighti widths density) for range of pressures;

2. Provide results of preoperational testing of sprays performed at the site so f ar.

3 Did the design basis of the spray ponds consider the effects of volcanic ash on the reduction of pond volume or the operation of pumps? PLease elaborate.

Provide a commitnent on operational (or preoperationaL) testing of the spray ponds to verify performance characteristics- Al-though the staff can make a preliminary determination of accept-ability based on the manufacturers suggested performance criteriar it is necessary to verify the performance parameters under Load. The= Hydrologic Engineering Section is with the thermaL and water use char acteristics- The especially'oncerned seepage rates will also have to be verified unless it can be shown that the makeup capability can survive alL natural events and combinations thereof.

Response

1. The spray characteristics for the oriented spray cooling system are given in the Ecolaire Topical Reports "Oriented Spray Cooling System for Ultimate Heat Sink Applications" Figure 371.018-1 gives drop size spectrum as a function of pressure.

The operating pressure var ies with elevation of nozzles in the spray trees. For a flow rate of 10r300 gpmi the top nozzle pressure was measured at 17.3 psi. Spray region dimensions were not measured in Supply System testings but were estimated from photographs. Estimates indicate that the spray region has an outer diameter of about 140 feet and a width of about 24 feet. The dimensions tend to vary depending on wind conditions. The height of the spray region is about 25 feet.

II' MNP "2 In 1979'he Supply System conducted a test of the Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System to verify its perfor-mance characteristics. The results of the testing have been analyzed and documented in Reference 1.*

.3. In the design basis of the ultimate heat sinkr a 6-inch sedimentation a l lowance was used for inventory consider-ations This allowance included all forms of accumulationr such as dustr silty or volcanic ash. Recent data from the Nt St. Helens eruption is being evaluated to deter-mine an appropriate design basis volcanic ashfall. Pre-Liminary indications are that the 6-inch aLLowance will be sufficient for displaced water volume. The spray ponds will be cleaned whenever the sedimentation reaches a level whichi with design basis ashfaLLr would exceed the 6-inch aLLowance.

With regard to pump operationi experience has indicated that there may be some increased Leakage from seals as a result of a'olcanic ashfaLL. The potential impact on pumps is being evaluatedi and wilL be reported when compLete. Preliminary indications are that increased seaL Leakage wiLL be the only significant effects and that will not affect the abiLity of the pumps to perform

- their safety function-The Supply System has performed a preoperationaL test to establish the performance characteristics of the spray pondsi as discussed in Item 2 above. The results of that test are being used to update the UHS safety evaluation in the FSAR.

The results of those analysesi specifically the temperature and inventory marginsr wi Ll be considered in determining whether or not additionaL testing is warranted. Preoperational testing will be done to establish seepage rates following the repair of joints in the spray pond.

• Attached.

WNP-2

REFERENCE:

~isn't I. Supply System Report SJPPSS-EN-81-01m "197'i Ult imate Sink Spray System Test Result" i by K. R. Connr in~ urf ~d l

a s a t t a c hm e n t t o G02 b/,

1o4 0

Pl 10 pslg n 4 l/l C 1

03 Pl C7 15 ps'ig C/l Mr LJ N m c 1

w O

I K

10 20 ps g 1

Dl Cl 4l 0 Pl LJ 30 psig P7 m.

40 ps1g CC -l A

m

)0'o 3

0 2

1o 'X10 ACCUMULATED-VOLVME, PER CENT 1O' 2

E

+l~

C'~+'PPSS-FN-A1.-01 f

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 1979 'ULTIMATE MEAT SINK SPRAY SYSTEM VEST RESULT By K. R. Conn Reliability

, Systems and Engineering APPROVED:

- G.. Gelhaus, Chief Nuclear Engineering D. M. Myers Systems and Reliability Engineering j ~ ~

\

IJ II

'1

CONTEN"'.5 SECTION Paoe I INTRODUCTION ~ e o ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ s 1 IL o

SUMMARY

o ~ ~ o ~ ~ s o ~ o e ~ o ~ e ~ ~ e e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o 2 III. DESCRIPTION OF UHS......... - - - - - - 3 IY. TEST DESCRIPTION .......'................ 5

~ e A. General Arran ement ..;................ 5 B.. Test E ui ent and Measurements.......-....... 7 Data Ac uisition S stem.......... . - -- .. - 10 D. Data Calibration..................... 11 E. Thermal Performance Tests................. 12 F. Drift Loss Test..................... 13 V. THERMAL PERFORMANCE DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS......'.. 13 A. Introduction........................ 13 B. Discussion of Test Data..........,........ 15 C. Data Reduction..............

AA

- .. -- .. - 19 D. '~A ~ ~, ~ o e ~ ~ 20 E. Sumar of Data Anal sis..............;... 22 P

A A,P A

~

fi ~

CONTENTS (Con',)

SECTION ~Pa e "ll. DRIFT LOSS DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS............ 23 A. Introduction.....,.......... - . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 23 B. Drift Loss Test Suranar ~ ~ o ~ ~ e 24 C. Drift Loss Data Reduction and Ana1 sis.... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 25 D. Sunear of Test Ana1 sis........... o ~ o ~ o a 30

LIST OF TABLE~

Tit1e ~Pa e Test Su@nary - Ultimate Heat Sink Test Program.... ...31 Suamary of Ultimate Heat S nk Spray System Thermal, I

Performance Tests Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 0 032 Suamary of Test Data Reduction for Mind Speed and Relative Humidity Correlations..............37 Ultimate Heat Sink pray system - Summary of Drift Loss Test Data.'........ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .39 Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System-'- Surrmary of Drift Loss Analysis......... ~ ~ e40 ss 4

IP V

l"

t z ~

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Nu. Title P~ae Ultimate Heat Sink - Simplified Schemaiic of Standby Service Water and Spray System. . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2. Ultimate Heat Sink - Spray Piping Arrangements. . . . . 42

3. General Arrangement - UHS Test Program. . . . . . . . . . 44 Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System - Predicted Spray Performance...................... 45

5. Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System - Typical Cold Water Temperature Measurement Profiles,

- Tests 3, 14 and 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . - -- .. 4S Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System - Typical Cold Water

~ e Temperature Measurement Profiles K r

- Tests 11, 12 and 20................ .." 47

7. Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System - Typical Test Performance - Test 85................. 48

8. Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System - Typical Test Performance - Test 87 ............ ~ ~ ~ e ~ e 49 r

9. Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System - Correlation of Test Performance with Wind Speed........ 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 50

10. Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System - Correlation of Test Performance with Relative Humidity..... ~ ~ e ~ o ~ 51 Ultimate Heat Sink Spray System - Drift 'Loss. ~ o ~ o e o 52

I. INTRODUCTION The WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 includes the first application of the Ecolaire Condenser Inc. Oriented Spray Cooling System (OSCS) in a nuclear power plant ultimate heat sink (UHS). The OSCS concept pro-vides the potential for achieving the high overall spray efficiency levels that historically have been predicted for spray systems but I

which have not been achieved in conventional spray networks because of the decrease in local cooling potential at the spray segments located in the internal and downwind areas of the network. This high perfor-mance potential has been demonstrated for the OSCS in model and full scale tests'. These tests provided the.,correlation basis for the I

performance prediction model used by the designer to develop a predic-tion of the OSCS performance for the .WNP-2 UHS design.

However, no testing has been performed on an actual OSCS installation of the same design as that at MNP-2 and under conditions that would confirm the validity of the designer's performance prediction for the WNP-2 UHS spray system. In addition, there has been no correlation of the designer's drift loss prediction models with test results. In order to verify the validity of the designer's predictions, the Supply System conducted a test program on the MNP-2 OSCS installation during

'I Oriented Spray Cooling System (OSCS) For Ultimate Heat Sink Appli-cations (UHS), Ingersoll Rand Topical Report IR'00 P, January 1977.

August and September, 1979. This report de"n -':; tl e test prcgr 'm, A

presents the test 'data and analysis, and correlates the designer's predictions to the test results.

.ii.

SUMMARY

Twenty tests were conducted during the spray test program. Tests were run at various times of the day and for durations of 14 minutes to 5-1/4 hours. Test data was obtained at wet bulb temperatures from 45 to 63oF, wind speeds from zero to 25 mph gusts and relative humidity levels from 28 to 76%. Test cooling potentials from 9oF to 33oF were obtained. C ~

I

~

The designer's spray performance prediction data did not include wind

~ ~

-velocity or relative humidity as variables. However, the test results

.showed a positive influence of wind velocity on the spray thermal performance. The test results indicated that the predicted .spray performance is conservative or nonconservative depending on whether the J

wind velocity is above or below 7-1/2 mph. At a wind speed of 10, mph,.

'or example, the predicted spray performance. is conservative by about 6X; however, at zero wind velocity the predicted. performance is noncon-servative by about 17K. The test results were inconclusive with respect to defining any influence of relative humidity level on the spray performance.

Drift loss rates, calculated from "o..'.'.:i" 'a;. vw;-.'uremunt.: ~"."c determined for 6 o'f the tests. The test drift rates were significantly greater than the predicted drift rates.

III. DESCRIPTION OF UHS The WNP-2 ultimate heat sink (UHS) consists of two concrete ponds incorporating spray cooling systems. The standby service water (SW) system circulates cooling water from the ponds to equipment required to shut down the plant'from either a .normal or accident condition and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and discharges the warm return water through the spray system.to dissipate the heat. There are two redundant SM loops, each serving an independent division of systems and equipment.. Each loop takes water from one pond and returns it

.through the spray system in the alternate pond. If only one loop is in operation, water is transferred between the ponds through a siphon.

There is a third standby service water loop which provides cooling to the High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) system and related equipment. This loop takes water from pond A and discharges it directly back into.

pond A. Figure 1 shows a simplified schematic of the standby service water and spray systems Figure 2 shows the spray piping arrangements.

The spray system in each pond is a circular design referred to by the designer, Ecolaire Condenser, Inc., as an "oriented spray cooling system" (OSCS). In concept, the OSCS simulates the cooling action ofa natural draft cooling tower without the physical structure of a tower-

As shown in Figure 2, the spray system consists of a circu>.r a>'inn.u-ment of spray tree;modules. The circle is 140 feet in diameter and includes thirty-'two spray trees. The SM discharges to a 20 inch r ing header which distributes the water to the vertical risers. HorizonLal arms are attached to the vertical, risers in a helical pattern. The toi arm is 18 feet above the centerline of the ring header (or approxi-mately 20 feet above the normal pond surface). A Spraying Systems Company 1-1/2 CXSS 27-55 Mhirljet nozzle is located at the end of each arm.

The spray system design was based on a SM loop ffow rate of 9,725 gpm.

This resulted in a design flow rate per spray tree of 304 gpm and a predicted top nozzle design pressure of 17 psi. The SM operational flow rate is presently expected to be approximately 10,300 gpm. During

'I the test program operation at this flow rate resulted in a top nozzle pressure of 17.3 psi.

Each pond is 250 feet square and contains approximately 6.25 million gallons of water. The distance from the spray ring header to the sides

, of the pond is 55 feet. The distance from the header to the corners is approximately 107 feet.

Pi 5 I V. TEST DESCRIPTION A. General Arran ement Figure 3 shows- the general arrangement of the test equipment for the UHS test program. Since the complete standby service water system was not operational at the time of, the test. temporary piping was installed between the standby service water pump and the spray system supply header of Pond A. Some of the stop logs were in place; therefore, the flow from the pond into the pumphouse was from the upper pond level. Orifices were used to remove the excess pump head and to..obtain the desired spray flow rate and top nozzle pressure. Once the test program was started the pump was operated continuously (except 1

for shutdowns for orifice changes and pump checks) to provide a heat load (approxi-mately 3.9 million Btu's per hour) into the pond. The flow was returned to the pond through a straight dump during nontest periods. To initiate a spray test the flow was simply diverted from the dump line to the spray system.

Two meteorological stations were used with one placed on the east side and one on the west side of the pond. The station on the west side was later (prior to test f5) moved to the southwest corner of the pond so it would be further removed from any physical influence of the pumphouse. Each station provided

m'easurements of wet bulb 'temperature, dry bulb temperature, wind velocity and mind direction.

The spray operating conditions were defined by pressure measure-ments in the temporary piping near the pump and the interface with the spray supply header and at three top nozzles. The hot water temperature (THOT) was measured in the temporary piping at a loca-tion upstream of the"pressure reducing orifices. The flow rate was measured with an orifice meter located in the temporary piping.

Pond water temperatures were measured at four different levels at three pond locations by stratification temperature stations.

Cooled spray water was collected in catch pans and temperature measurements made. There were 24 pans, arranged in 8 groups (on 45 degree radials) of 3 each.

A stilling we11 with a hook gauge, located in the S.W. corner of the pond, was used for water level measurements for determining pond level changes during a test.

-6<<

B. Test Equi . ent and Measurements

1. Meteorological Stations The meteorological stations were supplied by WeatherMeasure Corp.

The stations consisted of:

a. Cup anemometer .-, Model W103-3SS Accuracy - Greater of + 1% or 0.15 mph Threshold - 0.9 mph Speed Transducer - HF Tachometer Signal conditioning module'. MD103-HF

b. Vane - Model W104-2 Thresho 1 d - 0.75 mph Reso lution - 0.72 degree .

Signal conditioning module r

- MD104<<540 c~ Wet bulb and dry bulb temperature unit - Model R020-10 Sensors - Platinum resistance bulbs Probe aspiration - By fan, 600 feet/min.

Wet bulb sensor - Kept moist by gauze wick dipped in water reservoir Accuracy + 0.5oC

d. Power supply module - MD910

0 4I The anemometers and wind vanes were mast-mounted and located V

approxir;,ately 13 feet above ground level.

The wet and dry bulb temperatures were recorded on the data-logger. The wind speed and direction were recorded on the brush recorder. Beginning with test 84, they were also recorded on the datalogger.

2.'ater Temperature Measurements Mater temperature measurements were made with precision platinum RTD's having an accuracy of +0.1oF. Signal conditioning was performed by, and-.the data recorded, on the datalogger.

3. Cooled Spray Mater Collection Pans Floating conical collection pans three feet in diameter were used for collecting the cooled spray water. The water col-lected in the pan discharged through a 1-5/8 inch (I.D.)

drain pipe installed at the apex of the pan. A holder was attached to the pipe for holding an RTD for obtaining a tem-perature measurement of the cooled spray water as it dis-charged from the collection pan.

t ~

it

4. Mater Pressure Measurements The water pressure measurements were by direct reading gauges directly mounted on the pipe or, in the case of the top noz-zle pressures, mounted at a readable location with connection to the pressure source'y tubing. Beginning with test 84, two of the top nozzle pressures were recorded on the datal o gger.

5. Fl ow Rate A sharp edged orifice with a. bore:diameter of 12.595 inches (in a pipe with an inside diameter of 17.25 inches) was used for measuring the spray system flow rate. Flange taps were used. 'he orifice was sized for a flow range of 0 to 11,000 gpm with a differential head range of 0 to 300 inches of water. The flow rate was recorded as percent of full range differential head on the datalogger. Beginning with test 83, the flow rate was also recorded on the chart recorder.

6. Pond Level Pond level (for use in determining the total water loss during a test for calculating the drift loss) was measured with a stilling chamber and a. hook gauge. The hook gauge was of a micrometer type graduated in thousandths of an inch.

9

h s

C. Data Ac uisition S, stem

1. Datalogger A Doric ilodel 220-100.04 datalogger was used for a digiL'ai printed (paper) record of data. The unit could record up to 100 data channels with a resolution of + 0.1oF with the data recorded at intervals selectable from 1 to 60 minutes.

The sampling speed was 2 readings per second.

Data initially recorded on the datalogger consisted of:

a. The 24 TCOLD temperatures

b. The 12 pond stratification station temperatures C~ The THOT temperature

'I

d. The 2 meteorological station wet and dry bulb temperatures

e. Flow rate The following data was added to the datalogger prior to test 84:

a. The 2 meteorological station wind speeds and directions

b. Two of the top nozzle pressures The temperature data was recorded in oF. All other data was recorded in percent of full range.

2. Strip Chart Recorder A 6 channel Model 260 Brush Recorder was used for continuous recording of the wind speed and direction data from tho i::ro meteorological stations. The flow rate was also recorded on this recorder. The recorder was operated at a chart speed of 5 mn/minute during the test periods.

D. Oata Calibration Yarious calibration checks were performed on the measurement and data-acquisition systems prior to,. during, and following the test 4

progr am.

An end-to-end calibration error check was made on the cold-water temperature measurements prior to the initiation of the test program and after the conclusion of the tests. The yond was used as a "bath" for the calibration error checks with the reference temperature obtained with a ca'librated thermometer. With the exception of one, channel during the pretest calibration, all tem-rature channels showed a negative error (i.e., the indicated temperature from the datalogger was low) during both calibration checks. The error varied from -0.97 to +0.10oF, with an average of -0.50 F, during the pretest check and from -1.02 to -.38oF, with an average of -0.63oF, during the post-test check.

'll l3

'\

v~

C,

E. Thermal Performance Tests A total of 20 spray tests were conducted during the period from August 18, 1979, to September 28, 1979. Tho tests are suranarized in Table 1. Thermal performance data was collected during all of the tests. The initial tests were run in the early morning, when the wet bulb temperature was low, to achieve the greatest cooling potential. Also, the winds were normally light and more steady at that time of day. Some of the later tests were run at later times during the .day in order to obtain test results under higher wind conditions and at lower relative humidity levels. The last test covered an extended period from 10 14.a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Tests were performed at wet bulb temperatures from 45oF to 63oF with wind speeds from zero to 25 mph gusts and relative humidity levels from 28 to 76K.'est cooling potentials from 9oF to 33oF were obtained.

During the first four tests, the top nozzle pressure I

was below the design value of 17 psig. Prior to test w5, the orificing in the temporary piping was revised to increase the spray flow to the presently expected operational level of 10,300 gpm. This raised the nozzle pressure to 17.3 psig.

The total cumulative test time was approximately 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br />. The data on the datalogger was normally recorded every minute.

However, during portions of tests Zl"i, 0+..", and .=.1-'.n! al! e-."

test 820, the data was recorded every five minutes. A total of approximately 670 sets of data were recorded.

F. Drift Loss Tests Pond level data was collected in conjunction with six (6) of the tests for use in calculating spray drift rates. Mater level measurements were made, with a hook gauge and stilling chamber, before and after the test. This data was used to determine the total loss of water from the pond during the test. The loss, of water due to dr ift was calculated 0y subtracting the losses due to other causes (e.g., spray and surface evaporation and leakage) from the total pond loss.

V. THERMAL PERFORMANCE DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS A. Introduction The cooling potential (CP) of a spray system is defined as the differential between the temperature of the water at the spray nozzles, THOT, and the ambient air wet bulb temperature, TMB.

This 'represents the physical limit of cooling that can be achieved in the spray process. The cooling range (CR) is the amount of cooling actually achieved in the spray process and is defined as

- 13 <<

f L

t

the differential between THOT and the tern";.~ a.:.;;e of '.hr so-."ye..

water as it contacts the surface of the pond, TCOLO. The effe:-

tiveness of the spray system, in removing heat from the sprayed water is described by the spray efficiency, defined as the ratio of cooling range to cooling potential.

The performance predicted for the WNP-2 spray system by the de-signer, Ecolaire Condenser, Inc., is shown in Figure 4. This figure gives a prediction of the cooling range for a specified cooling potential and wet bulb temperature. The spray efficiency is the slope of the constant wet bulb temperature lines. The constant wet bulb temperature lines are not linear; thus, the predicted efficiency varies with cooling potential as well as wet bulb temperature. Over the ranges of CP and TWB shown in Figure 4 the efficiency varies from approximately 47K to 60%. Note that the designer's performance prediction only recognizes wet bulb temperature and cooling potential as variables.

The objective of the thermal performance test program was to.

establish the validity of .the designer s prediction of the perfor-mance of the WNP-2 spray system. Therefore, the approach followed iri the data reduction and analysis was to compare the test

'erformance with the designer's predicted performance and to establish a correlation for any deviation of the test performance from the predicted performance due to factors other than wet bulb

-.14-

temperature, and cc." ling potenti,.l .

B. Discussion of Test Data The wet bulb temperature readings from the two meteorological towers were normally different. This was concluded to be due to the difference in location of the towers with respect to the wind, spray and pond. Whereas a tower located upwind of the pond would be exposed to normal ambient air, the tower located downwind of the pond would be exposed to air that had picked up moisture from the spray and/or pond. The latter would indicate a higher wet bulb temperature.

The conditions of interest are the local, ambient meteorological conditions uninfluenced by the pond or spray. Therefore, the, minimum value was always assumed to be the upwind value and was always selected as the ambient wet bulb temperature for the purpose of calculating the spray performance. When the wind was from an easterly or westerly direction the wind direction data from the towers would verify the assumption of the minimum wet bulb temperature value as the upwind value. However, when the wind was from the northerly or southerly directions it was not always apparent from the wind data which tower, if either, was in an upwind 'relationship to the pond. It, should be noted that the consideration of- a low wet bulb temperature results in a high

value of coolin'g potential end a n. 4 hi~a vol. o +F'red'e'; c'~oi" ing range. Thus, the use of the minimum value 1

of wet bulb tem-perature results in a conservative comparison of the test performance with the predicted performance.

The dry bulb temperature values from the two towers were also usually different. It is likely that these measurements were influenced by the same factors as the wet bulb temperature mea-surements. Therefore, the dry bulb temperature associated with J

the minimum wet bulb temperature was always selected for data analysis purposes.

At rated flow the standby service water pumps generate approxi-mately 500 feet of head. During the tests about 8(C of this head was removed by orifices. It is assumed that the orifices con-verted this pressure energy to thermal energy. The energy conversion would be equivalent to approximately 1/2oF tempera-ture rise in the pumped fluid. The hot water temperature was measured at a location upstream of the pressure reducing orifices and thus did not include this temperature differential. The actual water temperature at the nozzles would have been higher than the measured THOT by this differential. As a result the indicated test performance (CR) should have been lower than the actual test performance by the same differential. The predicted performance would likewise have been lower but only by the tem-perature differential times the efficiency. The indicated test

performance would thus be conservative;:i';h .-~;9~r" -v .a coryar'-

1 son of test to predicted performance.

The cold water temperature was measured at 24 locations, iMeasure-ments were made at each of eight equally spaced (45 degrees) angular locations around the spray circle. Three measurements,'t different locations along the radial cross section of the spray annulus, were made at each angular location. It was originally planned to determine profiles of the concentration'f cold water across the spray radial cross sections. These profiles would be utilized in computing a weighted average 'cold water temperature at each angular measurement location.; These eight values would then be averaged to obtain an overall effective TCOLD for the spray system. However, when testing was initiated

~ ~

it was"discovered that the cold water impact envelope at the pond surface was con-stantly shifted and reshaped under variable and shifting wind conditions. It was apparent that it would not be feasible to determine the cross sectional profile of the spray, and its physi-cal orientation to the temperature measurements. Thus, some, other

'pproach was necessary in, order to determine an effective cold water temperature value for .each group of measurements.

During the early tests correlation of the cold water temperature measurements with visual observation of the locations of the col-lection pans relative to the spray pattern indicated that at a given angular location the cold water temperature measurement

0 varied with the concentration of spray cold water. The hiGh<".t temperature v'alue in the group of three was from the collection pan located in the heaviest concentration of water. Since the spray test performance varies inversely with TCOLD,,consideration of a high value of TCOLD would result in a low or conservative value for the test performance. Therefore, it was decided to use the highest temperature from each group of measurements as repre-sentative of the effective TCOLD at that location. These values were then averaged to obtain an overal'I effective TCOLD for the spray system.

The presence of a wind results in. an increase in the local spray, performance (illustrated by a decrease in the cold water tem-peratures) on the upwind side of the spray circle with a decrease in local performance (with higher cold water temperatures) on the downwind side. The resulting angular co'Id water temperature dis-- -."--=

tribution is similiar to a sine wave. However, the pattern appears to flatten out, with less variation between the upwind and downwind TCOLD measurements, at wind speeds greater than 15 mph.

This is apparently due to a diminishing of the adverse effect on the downwind side of the spray system as the air flow through, the spray becomes large due to the high wind. Typical cold water temperature distributions for various wind conditions are shown in Figure 5 and 6. These figures also show typical variations that occurred in the cold water temperature measurements at the same angular location P

C. Data Reduction

.The data reduction plan consisted of determining the absolute and percent differences between the test cooling range and the designer's predicted cooling range. The test cooling range was calculated from the hot water temperature (THOT) and the overall effective cold water temperature (TCOLD). The predicted cooling I~

range was determined from the designer.'s predicted performance data (Figure 4) at the minimum test wet'bulb temperature and the test cooling potential (CP). The CP was calculated from THOT and the minimum wet bulb temperature (TWB). For consistency and ease.

II fit,to the 1

of determination the following equation. was graphical data of Figure 4:

CR=(-.761+.009 TMB)+(.2677+.004029 TWB) CP+(.001179-7.14xl0-6 TMB) CP2 Where CR = cooling range TWB = wet bulb temperature CP = cooling potential A11 the data was reduced for each test (except for nonstabilized points at the beginning of spray operation). The test conditions and results are sumnarized in Table 2. Figures 7 and 8 show graphical sumnaries of the reduced test data for two typical tests.

-. 19,>>

0 li

Since the test data was not recorded on magnetic tape '.t w;.

considered impractical to correct the raw data for the !ndividual cold water temperature measurement calibration rrors, Jristead, the average calibration error of -0.56oF was aiqlied discrimi ~

nately during the data reduction.

0. ~OA Evaluation of the results indicated that the diversity in test performance was due primarily to variations in wind velocity with a possible second factor being relative humidity levels. It was .

apparent that further analysis and correlation against these parameters was necessary in order to more precisely define the perf ormance characteristics of the. spray;.system.

Although all the test data.was reduced, -and it provided an'overall general indication of the performance of the spray system, much of the data was not usable for correlation analysis because of unsteady wind conditions. There were problems of disagreement between the data from the two towers and time response factors between indicated meteorological changes at the towers and the overall spray system performance. It was concluded that a final data analysis should be based on test data recorded during periods of steady wind and consistent meteorological conditions.

The data selected for -final data analysis and corr lation is ~",',.::

in Table 3. 'The primary criteria for selecting this data was steady wind conditions. When the wind was steady during the entire test, an average value was determined for the total i:,.s'.

However, where steady conditions existed only during portions of a test, or at individual test points, data was selected and averaged as practical.

The data from Table 3 is plotted in Figure 9 in terms of deviation of test performance from predicted performance versus wind speed.

This figure shows that there is a significant beneficial effect of wind on the spray system performance..:A straight line was fitted to the data by linear regression. The slope of this line is 2.12,

, indicating that the spray performance is nominally improved 2X for every one mph of wind velocity.

The designer's performance prediction does not include wind velo-city as a variable. Since wind has been considered to have a positive effect on spray performance, the designer's prediction should represent low (zero) wind conditions. The linear regres-sion fit of the test data indicates that at zero wind conditions the predicted performance is nonconservative by approximately 17%.

However, due to the positive influence of wind on the spray per-formance shown by the test'ata, the predicted performance is

~

progressively less nonconservative with increasing wind velocity

and is equal to the indicated test perform:,nc aP a wind speed f approximately 7-1/2 mph. With higher wind speeds, the predicted performance is progressively more conservative.

Prior to the test program, there was speculation of an adverse effect of re1ative humidity on the spray system performance.

Tests were run at different times during the day to obtain test data at various relative humidity levels. In order to evaluate

, the possibility of a relative humidity factor, the data from Table 3 was plotted in Figure 10 as a function of relative humid-ity. The wind velocity for each data point is also shown on the figure. There are isolated indications:of an adverse influence of relative humidity (e.g., the data points at 7, 8, and 8-1/2 mph wind velocity). However, other data points tend to indicate no .

influence. Therefore, because of the scatter in the data and the l

limited amount of data at the same wind velocity, but different relative humidity levels, it can not be concluded from the test results whether or not a relative humidity influence did exist.

If relative humidity does influence the spray performance, the test data tends to.indicate that it is a weak effect.

E. Sugar of Data Anal sis The results of the test program show that the performance of the spray system was strongly affected by the presence of wind. The 22

results indicate that in general, the spr y perfect.-,ance i";:re~;.eJ approximately'2X for each mile-per-hour of wind velocity.

It could not be concluded from the test results whether or not, the spray performance is affected by relative humidity. The results V

did indicate that any influence of relative humidity is apparently small.

1 A linear regression correlation of the results from the analysis of the selected (on the basis of steady. wind conditions) test data indicates that, for the conditions of the test program, the designer's predicted spray performance:is nonconservative by as much as 175. However, because of the favorable effect of wind, the predicted performance is less nonconservative with increasing wind velocity. The predicted performance is equal to the indi-cated test performance at a wind velocity of about 7-1/2 mph and is increasingly'conservative at higher wind velocities.

IV. DRIFT LOSS DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS A. Introduction The drift rate predicted by the designer (Ecolaire Inc.) for the HNP-2 UHS is based on a theoretical analysis and has not been substantiated by actual drift loss data. The predicted drift rate 23 w

is relatively insignificant (0.11%). However, because of;h ~

elevated profile of the OSCS spray there was concern about th,"=

potential magnitude of the actual drift loss rate from the HHS under significant wind velocities. Therefore, it wa= dec id ~

perform drift loss measurements during the spray performance t si.

program.

Several methods have been tried or proposed for experimentally determining drift losses from spray systems. For this test program the concept of determining the drift losses from the total pond water losses was applied.

S . Dr ift Loss Test Sumnar Drift loss data was collected for tests 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20.

1 The primary criteria for selecting tests for the collection of drift data was wind velocity. It was desired to obtain data under different,.but sign'ificant, wind velocities. The data collected for drift loss purposes consisted of pre- and post-test pond. water level measurements.. The level measurements were made with a hook gauge and stilling chamber.

-. 24-

C. Drift Loss Data Reduction and Ana vs is 1 The change in pond level during a test reflected the total loss of water from the pond. This total loss consisted of the following:

a. Spray evaporation

b. Surf ace evaporation

c. Pond or piping system leakage

d. Drift loss The change in pond level during a test was obtained from level measurements taken before and after the test. During test 20, level measurements were also made. at several different times during the test. The level data for tests 14, 17, 18 and 20 consisted of four separate measurements at each time point. The arithmetic average of the four values was used for the water level value at that time. In most cases the variation between the four measurements was less than 0.015 inches, which is equivalent to an increment of drift rate less than 0.1>> for a sixty minute test duration. This is sufficient accuracy for establishing the pond total water loss for use in calculating drift rates.

In Test 18 there was a variation of 0.11 inches between the four post-test level measurements. The pond level change based on the pre- and post-test averaged measurements was only 0.148 inches.

The accuracy of the drift rate calculated from this data is thus questionable-

Only single values, of pond level measurement were available for tests 15 and 19. During the drift loss tests, the air dry bulb temperature was generally within a few degrees of the hot water temperature. As the spray drops cooled, conductive heat transfer was negligible. It was therefore conservative from a drift loss standpoint to assume that all heat removed from the spray water was by evaporation. The spray evaporation rate was calculated from the following relationship:

M E

=MS x o CR HV Where: ME

= Spray evaporation rate - GPM M = Spray flow rate - GPM C = Specific heat - Btu/lb - F P

T = Spray cooling range (THOT-TCOLD) - F HP = Heat of vaporization - Btu/lb The spray flow rate was a nominal constant 10,300 gpm during the tests-.

The specific heat was assumed to be I. An average value of cooling range was assumed for each test. The heat of evaporation was based on an average of CAHOT and TCOL'D..

The 1OSS Of Water frOm the pond due tO Sur-aoe eVao.;r i'~;1O.:

was calculated from the test meteorological conditions and pond surface temperature by the following retatirnshins:

M ~ES ES = 181.6 766v Where: MES

= Rate of water loss from the pond due tn surface evaporation - gpm g

= Density of water at pond surface temperature - ibm/ft3 0Hv = Heat of vaporization of water at pond surf ace temperature -Btu/ibm

= Rate of heat transfer from pond due to DIES surface evaporation - Btu/ft2-day.

The heat transfer rate, DIES

, was calcu1'ated from the I

fo 1 1 owing rel ati onship:

ES = (es - ea) (7D +.7

= Saturated vapor pressure at the water surface temperature - mmHg

= Air vapor pressure - IHg U = Wind velocity-- mph i i il i i ii ii i i D.K. Brady, W.l . Graves and .. eyer o C

ohn op 1ns nsverssty Electric Institute Research Project No. 49., Nov. 1969.

for Edison

-. 27"

C It was assumed that there was no evaporation from that por'.ion ci'he pond surface influenced by the presence of the spray-(namely, that portion within the confines of the ring header and the downwind projection of the ring header).

Nominal average test values of pond temperature, wind. speed, and upwind meteorological data were used to calculate a total surface evaporation loss for the test.

There was no direct evidence of leakage from the pond or piping system during the tests. A later independent evaluation of the various pond level data collected.-during the test program indi-cated that any leakage from the pond was relatively insignificant.

(less than 5 gpm, which would be equivalent to a drift loss e of less than 0.055). Therefore, zero leakage was assumed for the drift loss analysis. Any leakage that may have existed was thus included in the calculated drift rate.

The drift loss was calculated by subtracting the water losses due to spray and surface evaporation from the pond total water loss.

The drift loss test data and analysis results are sumnarized in Tables 4 and 5. The calculated drift rates are p'lotted in Figure 11 as a function of wind speed.

Figure ll shows considerable scatter in the test drift rates, specifically between tests 14, 17, 18 and 20. The causes of the fi scatter are, difficult to define. Normally, the accuracy of the calculated total water consumption would be suspect due to the relatively small changes in pond levels that occurred during the tests. However, as discussed previously, there is a high level of confidence in the total water consumption values for tests 14, 17 <<

and 20. Thus, this factor is not considered, to be the source of the.'ariation in drift rates between test 20 and tests 14 and 17.

There was considerable variation in the post-test level measure-ments for test 18 and this factor could account for a significant portion of the variation in drift rate between this test and the others. h The calculated test spray evaporation rates are of significant magnitude. Significant inaccuracies in these values could result in large variations in the calculated drift rates. On the other hand, the calculated test surface evaporation rates are fairly small in magnitude and significant inaccuracies in these values would only result in small variations in the calculated drift rates.

Therefore, except for test 18, no conclusions can be made with respect to the causes or magnitudes of the apparent scatter in the calculated test drift rates. For purposes of UHS 'evaluations an upper bound curve fit of the the calculated, test drift rates is r

considered representative of the drift loss rates that may be expected from the MNP-2 spray system for wind speeds within the range (up to 9 mph) covered by the drift te'sts.

0. Sugar of Test Anal sis The data analysis results for the drift test data are shown In Figure 11 along with the'predicted drift rate. The predate~.;::

drift rate is essentially constant for wind speeds below 12 mph.

The test data, however, indicates that the drift rate varied with wind velocity even at low velocities, and also that the actual drift rate's much greater than predicted by the designer's theoretical analysis.

There is considerable scatter in the test drift rates which, .

except for test 18, is not explai:.nable; For UHS evaluations, it is recomnended that the upper bound curve fit of the calculated drift rates, shown in figure 11, be considered representative of the potential drift rates for the WNP-2 UHS spray system for wind.

speeds up to 9 mph.

LE 1 MNP-2 TEST

SUMMARY

ULTIMATE HEAT SINK TEST PROGRAM Test Date . Time THOT TWB TDB CP RH Wind Top Nozzle Flow Drift Start End 0F 0F 0F oF MPH PSIG Rate Loss 'ress, GPM Data 8-18-79 5l40 6:05 78 56 63 22 63 1 to 3 steady 15.5 9,750 Ho 8-18-79 7:20 7:53 77 58 66 19 62 2 to 6 steady 15.5 9,430 No, 8-21-79 5'4l 6:04 80 60 69 20 61 16 to 3 diminishing 14.5 9,430 No--"

8-23-79 5:37 6:14 81 58 62 23 76 2 to 10 variable 14.5 9,430 No 8-25-79 5:35 6:04 80 51 56 29- 72 0 to 3 steady 17.3 10,300 Ho 6 8-25-79 8-27-29 7:38 8: ll ~

79 53 61 26 62 0 to to 3 steady variable 17.3 17.3 10,300 105300 No 7 8:24 8:51 81 59 70 21 53 5 12 . Ho 8' 8-27-79 (2:04) (2:27) 81 63 85 18 28 3 to 25 gusty 17;3 10,300 Ho 8-29-79 5'07 5:23 81 55 61 26 70 0 to 5 steady 17.3 10,300 No 10 8-29-79 (1:12) (1:26) 82 65 85 17 32 1 to 10 gusty 17.3 10,300 Ho 8-30-79 (2:25) 2:39) 81 63 76 18 4p 5 to 20 gusty 17.3 10,300 Ho 12 8-31-79 (3:55) 4:25) 81 62 82 19 33 4 to 18 gusty 17.3 10,300 Ho 13 9-5-79 6:44 7:13 80 49 52 31 75 1 to 8 variable 17.3 10,300 Ho 14 9-5-79 8:32 9:40 79 53 60 26 63 1 to 7 variable 17.3 105300 Yes 15 9-8-79 11:37 (12:51) 80 57 76 23 3h'0 3 to 20 gusty 17.3 10,300 Yes 16 9-12-79 5'49 6:22 78 45 51 33 1 to 5 steady 17.3 10,3CO No 17 9-12-79 (3:11) (4:17) 77 59 80 18 28 1 to 12 variable 17.3 10,30O Yes 18 9-14-79 9:57 10:56 76 58 73 18 41 1 to 10 variable 17.3 10,300 Yes 19 9-20<<79 9:33 10:32 74 59 71 15 47 0 to steady 17.3 10,300 Yes 20 9-28-79 10:14 (3:3O) 68 55 70 13 40 1 to 14 mixed 17.3, 10,300 Yes Times in (,) are p.m.

THOT - Spray hot water temperature - OF TMB - Met bulb temperature - OF TDB .

- Dry bulb temperature - oF CP - Cooling potential (THOT - 7WB) - OF RH - Relative humidity - X

TABLE 2 WNP-2

SUMMARY

OF ULTIMATE HEAT SINK SPRAY SYSTEM THERMAL PERFORMANCE TESTS RESULTS TEST i 1 TEST 8 2 TEST 8 3 TEST 8 4 Time; 5:40 to 6:05 a.m. 7: 20 to 7:53 a.m. 5:41 to 6:04 a.m. 5:37 to 6:14 a.m.

Wet bulb temp.: 55.0 to 56.2oF 57.3 to 59.3oF 60.2oF 57.6oF Ory bulb temp.:, 62.0 to 63.7oF 64.7'o 67.5oF 68.6oF 62.2oF Hot water temp.: 77.7oF 77.2oF 80.1oF 80.8oF Cold water temp.:~ 67.9 to 68.7oF 68.8 to 69.3oF 68.7 to 71.9oF 71.2oF Cooling potential: 21.5 to 22.7oF 17.6 to 20.1oF 19.8 to 20.1oF 22.5 to 23.9oF Pred. cooling range: 10.7 to 11.2 F 8.9 to 10.1oF 10.3oF nom. 11.4 to 12.1oF Test cooling range:* 9.0 to 9.8oF 7.8 to 8.5oF,. 8.1 to 11;5oF 93 to 100oF I

Cooling range:* -2.2 to -1.1oF -1.8 to -1.0oF -2.1 to +1.2oF -2.3 to -1.9oF deviation 1 -19.3 to -10;0$ -18.5 to -11.2$ -20.8 to +11.9X -20.0 to -16.4X Top nozzle pressure: 15.5 psig 15.5 psig 14.5 psig 14.5 psig Wind conditions: 1 to 3 mph, steady 2 to 6 mph, steady 16 to 3 mph, 2 to 10 mph, steady diminishing Relative humidity: 63K 62$ 61K 76K

1. Cooling range dev. CR Test - CR Pred, -oF or CR Test - CR Pred. X 100 'R Pred.

I

• These data vere adjusted for calibration error of -0.56oF on the cold water temperature data.

\

I e

Tabl (Cont inued)

TEST 0 5 TEST 0 6 TEST 8 7 TEST II 8 Time: 5:35 to 6:04 a.m. 7:38 to 8:11 a,m. 8:24 to 8:51 a.m. 2:04 to 2:27 p.m.

Met bulb temp.: 50.8oF 53.2oF noh'. 59.4oF nom. 63.]oF nom.

Dry bulb temp.: . 55.5oF nom. 59.6 to 61.7oF nom. 69 to 7]oF 84 to 86.5oF Hot water temp.: 79.7oF nom. 78.8oF nom. 80.5oF 80.7oF Cold water tery.:* 67.0oF nom. 67.2oF 68.4 to 70.2oF 70.0 to 72.5oF Coo li ng potenti al: 27.8 to 29.2oF 24 .5 to 26 .6oF 21.]oF nom, 16.9 to 18.3oF i, Pred. cooling range: 13.5 to 14.2oF ]2 60F nom 10.8o nom. 8.9 to 9,6oF Test cooling .range:* 11.8 to 13.5oF 11.7oF nom.. 10.3 to 12.0oF 8.2 to 10.8oF Cool) ng range;* -1.9 to -0.7oF -l.3 to -0.6oF -0.6 to +1.22oF -].1 to +1.5oF deviation 1 -13.4 to -4.8X -10.2 to -5;OX -5.4 to +)).4X -11.6 to +16.]X Top nozzle pressure: 17 .3 psig 17.3 psig 17.3 psig 17.3 psig Wind conditions: ]/2 to 3 mph, steady 0 to 3 mph, steady 5 to 12 mph, variable 3 to 25 mph, gusty I

Relative humidity: 72K 62K 53K 28K

I'

Tab (Continued) )a TEST 0 9 TEST 8 10 TEST 0 ll TEST IW 12 Time: 5:07 to 5:23 a.m. 1:12 to 1:26 p.m. 2:25 to 2:39 p.m, 3:55 to 4:25 p.m.

Met bulb tery.: 54.7 to 55.9oF 64.0 to 65.3oF 63.3oF 62.4oF Ory bulb temp.:, 60.7oF 85.5oF 76.0oF 82.0oF Hot water temp.: 81.3oF 81.6oF 81.2oF 81.2oF Cold water temp.:* 70.0oF 72.7 to 75.0oF 69.7oF nom. 70.1 to 72.1oF Cooling potential: 26,10F 16.4 to 17.7oF 18.0oF nom. 18 1 to 19 4oF

~

Pred. cooling range: 13.1oF nom., 8.9oF nom. 9.4oF nom. 9.5 to 10.1oF I

Test cooling range:* 11.3oF nom. 6.7 to 8.9oF.. 11.5oF nom. 9.1 to 11.1oF I

'ooling range:* -2.0 to -1 2oF -2.2 to +O.loF +1.60oF nom. -0.9 to +1.4oF

. deviation 1 -15.4 to -9.1X -24.6 to +1.).g +18.0$ nom. -9.3 to +14.3X l

Top nozzle pressure: 17.3 psig 17.3 psig 17'.3 psig 17.3 psig Mind conditions: 0 to 5 mph, steady 1 to 10 mph, gusty 5 to 20 mph, gusty 4 to 18 mph, gusty Relative humidity: 70Ã 32K 33%

Tab e 2 (Continued) iae 4 07 fEST II 13 TEST k'4 TEST g 15 TEST g 16 Time: 6:44 to 7:13 a.m. 8:32 to 9:40 a.m. 11:37 to 12:51 5:49 to 6:22 a.m, Wet bulb temp.: 48.8oF 51.6 to 54.5oF 57.6oF 45.1oF Dry bulb temp.': 52.4oF 56.1 to 64.5oF 74.7 to 77.7oF 51.3oF Hot water temp.: 80.1oF 79.6 to 78.0oF 79.2 to 80.5oF 78 3oF Cold water femp.:* 66.6oF 67.3oF 66.7 to 70.8oF 64.1oF

'Cooling potential: 30,0 to 32.3oF 23.6 to 27.5oF 21.1 to 23.4oF 33.2oF Pred. cooling range: 14.4 to 15.4oF 11.6 to 13.5oF 10.7 -to 11.8oF 15.5oF nom.

Test cooling range;* 12.7 to 14.9oF 10.2 to 12.7oF 9.6 to 13.8oF nom. . 14.3oF nom.

Cooling range:* -2.1 to -0.6oF -1.4 to -0.5oF -1.7 to +2.1oF -1.6 to -0.9oF deviation 1 -14.0 to -3.6X -12.1 to -3.7X -15.0 to +17.8$ -10.3 to -6.05 Top nozzle pressure: 17.3 psig 17,3 psig 17.3 psig 17.3 psig Wind conditions: 1 to 8 mph, variable 1 to 7 mph, variable 3 to 20 mph, gusty 1.to 5 mph, steady Relative humidity: 75K 63K 32K 60K

Table 2 (Continued) ge y gv

. TEST 0 17 TEST 0 18 TEST 8 19 TEST g 20 Time: 3;ll to 4:17 p.m. 9:57 to 10:56 a.m. 9:33 to 10:32 a.m. 10:14 to 3:30 p.m.

Met bulb temp.: 57.8 to 59.6oF 57.1 to 59.1oF 57.6 to 60.8oF 52.8 to 58.4oF Ory bulb temp.: 79.0 to 80.3oF 70.0 to 75.2oF 68.7 to 73oF 65 to 74oF Hot water temp.: 77.7 to 76.9oF 75.7oF 73.5oF 69.4 to 66.7oF Cold water temp.:* . 67.0 to 69.2oF 66.6 to 68.0oF 67.0oF 61.2 to 64.0oF Cooling potential: 17.4 to 19.7oF 16.2 to 18.8oF 12.1 to 16.2oF 8.8 to 16.7oF Pred. cooling range: 8.8 to 9.9oF 8.9 to 9.4oF 6.1 'to 8.1oF 4.2 to 8.3oF Test cooling range:* 7.9 to 10.6oF 7.5 to 9;1oF 5.5 to 7.3oF 4.8 to 9.4oF Cooling range:* -1.5 to +l.loF -1.1 to +.SoF -1.2 to -0.3oF -0.9 to +1.1ol deviation 1 -16.2 to +12.0X -12.1 to"~6.0C -15.7 to -4.0$ -12.4 to +24.2Ã Top nozzle pressure: 17.3 psig 17,3 psig 17.3 psig 17,3 psig Mind conditions; 1 to 12 mph, variable 1 to 10 mph, variable 0 to 4 mph, steady 1 to 14 mph, mixed Relative humidity; 28K 45 to 38$ 475 36 to 44~

n 0

TABLE 3 Su@oar of'Test Data Reduction For Mind S eed and Relative Humidit Correlations NOZZLE NOM. WIND NOM. TCOLD* CR* CR TEST PRESSURE SPEED REL. HUM. THOT TWB CP AVG. TEST PRED. DEVIATION*

TEST TIME PS IG MPH 0F F F F F F CR - F C of CR Pred.

Over all 15.5 2 63 77.7 55.4 22.3 68.2 9.5 11.1 -1.6 -14.2 Overall .15.5 62 77.2 58.1 19.1 69.0 8.2 9.6 -1.4 -14.9 Ave. of 2 . 14.5 8-1/2 63 80.1 60.1 20.0 70.8 9.4 10.3 -0.9 - 9.1 Overall 14.5 5-1/2 76 80.8 57.6 23.2 71.2 9.7 11.8 -2.1 -18.1 Overall 17.3 1-1/2 72 79.7 50.8 28.8 67.0 12.7 14.0 -1.3 - 9.4 6 Overall 17.3 1-1/2 62 78. 8 53.2 25.6 67.2 11.7 12.6 -1.0 - 7.5 I 7 Avg. - 6 min. 17.3 7 55 80. 5 59.3 21.3 70.1 10.4 10.9 -0.5 - 4.3 Ig Io I 7 Avg. - 5 min. 17.3 8-1/2 53 80.5 59.4 21.1 69.7 10.8 10.8 +0.04 -+0.4

'4 ~

I 7 Avg. 4 min. 17.3 10 53 80.4 59.5 20.9 69.) 11.3 10.7 +0.6 + 5.9 r.-

lr; l ~

7 Avg. - 3 min. 17.3 ll 53 80.3 '58.3 21.1 68.5 11.9 10.8 +1.1 +10.1 8 Avg. of 3 17.3 29 8,0. 7 63.4 17.3 72.2 8.5 9.1 -'0.6 - 6.5 8 Avg. of 4 17.3 12 28 80.8 '63.3 17.5 70.8 10.0 9.2 +0.8 + 8.6 9 Avg. - 10.min. 17.3 1 70 81.3 55.1 26.3 70.1 11.2 13.1 -1.9 -14 '

ll Avg. of 3- 17.3 15 49 81.2 63.4 17.8 70.2 11.1 9.4 +1.7 +18.0

- 2.4 12 Avg. of 2 17.3 33 81.2 62.3 18.9 71.6 9.6 9.9. 0~3 12 Avg. of 2 17,3 33 81.2 62.1 19.2 70. 7 10.5 10.0 +0 +=5.0 12 4:14r08 17.3 11 34 81.2 62.5 18.7 70.7 10.5 9.8 +0./ + 7.4 fj s 13 Avg. >> 14 m)n. 17.3 3 75 79.9 48.9 31.0 66.7 13.2 14.9 -1.7 -11.6 14 Overall 17.3 4 63 79.0 53.1 25.9 67.3 11.7 12.7 '-1.0 - 8.2

~g

~~

15 Avg. of 2 17.3 5 32 80.5 57.6 22.9 69.8 10.7 11.6 -1,0 --. 8.2

."age " o;: 2 Table 3 (conid.)

Sumnar of Test Data Reduction For Wind S eed and Relative Humidit Correlations NOZZLE NOM. WIND NOM. TCOLD* CR* CR TEST PRESSURE SPEED REL. HUM. TfGT TWB CP AVG. TEST PRED. DEVIATION" TEST TIME PS IG MPH X oF oF oF ' OF 0F CR- F of CR Pred.

I 16 Overall 17.3 4 60 78.3 45.1 33.2 64.1 14.3 15.5 -1.3 - 8.2 17= Avg. of 5 17.3 5 28 77.5 59.0 18.5 68.5 9.0 9.4 -0.4 - 3.9 18 Avg. - 8 min. 17.3 3-1/2 45 75.9 . 57.7 18.3 67.7 8,2 9.2 -1.0 -10.5 18 Avg. - 4 min. 17.3 4-1/2 39 75.6 ~

58.6 17.0 67.6 8.1 8.6 -0.5 - 5.7 18 Avg. of 2 17.3 7 38 75.5 58.9 16.6 67.1 8.4 8.4 -0.01 - 0.2 19 Overall 17.3 2

'3.5 59.1 14.4 67.0 6.5 7.2 -0.07 -10.2 I

2b Avg. of 18 17.3 42 68.5 '4,9 13.5 62,4 6.1 6.5 -0.4 - 5.7 THOT - Spray hot water temperature - oF TWS - Wet bulb temperature - oF CP - Cooling Potential - F TCOLD AVG. - Avg. of highest temperature of each group of three spray cold water temperatures - oF CR - Cooling Range - oF DEV IATION - Differential between test cooling range and pred. cooling range I

Adjusted for average calibration error of -0.56oF on cold water temperature measurements.

TABL'E 4 MNP-2 ULTIMATE HEAT SINK SPRAY SYSTEM

'SUMNRY OF DRIFT LOSS TEST DATA

- Pond Level, Change Hethod-Test Test Spray Ave.* Ave. Ave. Pond Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Pond Duration Flow Coo ling THOT Surf ace Wet Bulb Dry Bulb Dew Point Wind Level Hin. GPM Range oF Temp o Temp. Temp. Temp. Speed Change.

OF .OF. oF MPH Inches 14 68 10,300 11.7 79.0 79.0 53,1 60.2 47.5 4 .2903 15 74 10,300 11.7 80.3 80.1 57.6 75.& 44.6 9 .4631 17 66 '0,300 9.0 77.3 77.2 59.0 79.0 44.0 5 .243 18 10,300 8.3 75.7 75,5 58.3 72.2 47.8 5 .148 19 59 10,300 73.5 73,2 59.1 71.2 49.5 .202 20 212~ 10,300 6.1 68.2 68.7

'5.4 67.2 41.7 .880 data was adjusted for calibration error of -0.56oF cold water temperature data.

~ This

.~ on Portion of test duration used for drift loss analysis.

I

A TABLE 5

'WP-2 ULTIMATE HEAT SINK SPRAY SYSTEM

SUMMARY

OF ORIFT LOSS ANALYSIS

- Pond Leve1 Change Hethod-Pond Mater Loss Rate Mater Loss Rate Spray Orift Mater Loss Due to Spray Oue to Surface Loss Average Wind Speed Rate Evaporation Evaporation MPH Test GPH GPH GPM GPH 166.3 ~

114.2 3.8 48,3 0.47 243.8 114.7 6.6 122.5 1.19.

0.50

'7.7 17 143.5 88.1 4.0 51.3 18 80.8 '- 3.4 13.5 0.18 19 133.4 63.1 2.4 67.9 0.66 20 161.7 59.5 2.9 99.3 0.96

I i t ~

1 I I i 1 i ~ ~ m I

I r I I. I I

I I I

I m

I I IINP-2 I I m I

I i'

~ ~

jo I

~ ~

I I ~

Ul ate Heat Sin k. I i I i

" in I I ~

i I ed Schem ati0 of'S a db 'Serv'ic I

I I

~

I I ~ ~ I

~ ~ ~

I iWater and S ra S s )

I

~

I i

I I I

I I

i "I" - To co lipg I i

I I

m Towers To Cog ling Towers I

'm ~

I ~

I I I

~ ~ ~ m ~

~

~

i v I'I Equi I I

r. Fro D ~ ~

.'Iom 0>v. 1 Eq ip.

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

I I I i I j I ~ I i ~ ~

i ~ i I I r  ! i

~

1 I I I I I II Equip.I'

~

Ta Div. I To Div. I E

~

uip.

i I

I I

I i SH:  : l- I 5W.

Pum

! HPCS SM Pump Pum B I i i I I j' 4'm I

~ m I

i ~

I I To HPCS E uip.

~ ~

I i i

~ -I ""I--- m

,I ti

~ I ~

From HPCS Equip.

I ~

I I, i i

~ I

~~ ~

I

~ ~

Pon  ; Pond A tiake Up Fro m I

I Circ. Hater I

~ I I m I

i

~

r i -' -)- ~ '-- i il

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

iI ~ I I

~ ~ i ~

i i ~ I I '

m r

j I t i I

~

i I I

I

'I

~

' ~

QWI

$ RF'*

~ ~

)Ig

MNP-2 ."iy'ure 2 Sheet 2 Ultinate Heat Sink S ra Pi in Arrtngeme.,ts

~ OPC tIC OPCOPPO /

Cto Cr VPPOS POTOL

~ SCoL PP So\CO CAP OIOOIT ALI IIOCCLCS A\ SOPVPI ASOVC AOOO OKC ALL VOCE'Ltt PPAASS TPE C'LTCL Po K ovo PSAOCC I CP 4 AppAv onISSLcs IILC t ~SI+AOPCI STSTSB4$

~

o o' PL LCI I

~

Pi ~

TE~ TPC~~ I C ~ IS[ poCLSPLCT SIILCC g5 I I

PLAM TPC RISES v

+- ~ COO v WVi.SWOP SOPC te orVOCLOOLCT SCOOP AI I

~PA V Poop PCIOOPOCCPAL SAODLC CLDIPO SCC DCTP II Po I POT C 4 SECTION 5-5 o'v l PPTTPOA>> POOOP CI 11O'El p p4 Iocppc4 j~ OVS1PLOPP CL PSOK IPTPPOP POOLL CL ~ SS>>

COAOC

~SECT OM I I 4{~u{ ~

NNP-2 GEHERAL ARRAteG "MENT UHS TEST PROGRAM SPRAY POND A 45 PI-4 23O 48 240 'OO 21Q-27 Q 250 28 Q 220

'I-5 PI-3 (Top Nozzle 29 40 41 o '.6 Pressure) 044 0 043 03 0 0 a2 O2 0 Oi 63 O6465 66 SW Pump

~pl-1 ~

I f

' PI-2 Q - Stilling we11 -

~ 1 Level Measurement 0 - Cooled Spray Water Collection Pans and Temperature

'ATA TRAILER Measurements

, {

- Water Stratification

. Temperature Stations h & ~

h

- Meteorology Stations  !

h

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ e Temporary Piping r

h

(~{ ~h + ) heee+%~ ~~+~++\+eh ~ ~ ~ .

g

~ a' r 'm NIP-2 Ultimate Heat Sink S ~ra ~Sstem Predicted S ra Performance U

O 30 Wet Bu b T ue- 0 5oF OJ Cll 5oF st) 5oF I

Ol 2

-20 O

O Ll

~ ~

e

]0 e '. OSCS'Instr ction and H intenance Hanua , H PSS t(uclear o. 2; EcCoaTre C ndenser Inc., Sept. 197 2, Letter: E olaire Cond nser Inc.

to Burns a d Roe; dtd ne 16, 197

~

0 0 10 20 '0 . 40 50 60 potential -

~

Coo1ing oF

tl t

I ~ I

~

11 V l HHP-2 r<<V

" Ultimate Heat Sink S ra S stem ical Cold Water Tem erasure Measurement Profiles 1:

I VI ~

- 74 Tests g I' 3, 14 and;19-@

72 r I I 0 I'

.70 Test 3 22 O Time: 6:02:5&

1'f . ~

68 Wind: 6 mph from Sg;,-

I a - .Outer measurement location 66 4 Middle measurement location I~ 5 G Inner measurement location Ol 70 S

112

' I 68

~ Cye 2 OJ Test 14 E Time: 9:30.'00 EU 66 Wind: 3 mph from 8 .

north 0 PI a

C, O 62 Note; This data was not corrected ,

II L.' for the cold water temperature

~

~ ~

calibration error 68 Test 19 Time: 9;38;00/ .

Mind: > eIph, southerly'. 8l e

64 W S E

. Angular Locationof Measurements

1 tr t1r 1 11 r NNP-2 I

Ultimate Heat Sink S rat S stem T ical Cold Mh'ter Tem erature Measurement Profiles rr

~ 1 I t

~

Tests ll, 12 and 20 72 70 Test ll Time: 2:32:00o O

U 68 Wind: 15 mph from south I

66 Outer measurement location I Hiddle measurement location Inner measurement location 72 Test 12

".. 70 Time: 4:14:004 Wind: ll mph

~

O. From south I

I--

68 I- '66  !

III ~

+I I

~

~

rr r 1

'O t)ote: This data was not corrected for O

the cold water temperature calibration 64 'est error 1

20 62 Time: 2:25:0 Mind: 8 mph from I

south r

1 6g-g ~

~ 1 58 1.r 1

1'r " 1",<<PA' I.

tr ~ E

-I '

1 Angular Location of l>easurement

Figure 7

~ W ~

WNP-2

'ltimate Heat Sink Spray System Test erTormance Test 85-Normal Hot Mater Temp. - 79.5oF Relative Humidity 72%

Hind Conditions - > to 3 mph, Steady 0

D CR Test - CR Pred.x 100

\ Pred

~ tX CR D I?

-16 14 red,.-

, I=: 13 I CR Test 12 00 r .

• O i I

CP O III O~

O 0

'8 Note: This data was not corrected for the CL cold water temperature calibration error.

E 52 I

Cl CI 51 r O CQ I

'50 III 67 CII O

+J ctS I ' T Cold

~

66 65 5:40:00 5:50:00 6:00:00 I

S- col Time

~l ICI $ 'O I 0 0 C/? C/? C LCI I/? .

i' r H

%pe~

Figure 8 1

l MNP-2 Ultimate Heat Sink S ra System Test er ormance

- TestP,7-I I

s 0

+I6 O U

+8. t CR Test - CR PPed) x 100 CR P",ed 0

" I Nominal Hot Mater Temp..' 80.5 Humidity - 54K F'elative I

13 Mind Conditions - ,5 to 12 mph, Variable. .. I I

12 CR Test stl ll CR .Pred.

1 e

10 22 CA sC1 CP 21 C

00 W Cl CD O 20 Cl 60 l- TMB 59 DO 58 're Note: This data was not corrected for the cold temperature calibration error 70.

6 U tL;O T Cold 69'a O

CD I I 68 67 I 8:20:00 8:30:00 8:40:00 8:50:

s.i

~, S df W O 6 'ime

~ ~

'I 0

l h

mf" a

'1'I

'-'.II.: II I %)fjd',! '.

I h I

(

<<Iti I ,dy (

. '( li: '"..

r

(

,( tip', ~

'NP-2

'I! ~ ~ ~

'ltimate Heat~Snk S ra S

! Correlation of Test Performance

' .:I. d idhd d I

~ ~

I~ ' II~

'i~

~,'I' ~ ~ ~

I CJ M

'II

~

. ~

heD lX

~ ( ~ IIt~ UM

(

"Z~ -.:+20 CL I!J

~,

I I O O

~ I ~ g 'D d(

'.(i'; fI' IIS

~ S.r r &I I r-i ( ~

' I( ~

+ QJ j

~

d (

d ~

ear Regression Correla d

rl I' I .

Intercept -15.410

' I-6 (

~.c e

~ ~

r P QI M I

~

~

I ~ ~

t' (

'"I'..:. }' I Im

'.'CQ IV I I ~ ~

)' '.<<20 I ~

~

".' M Vt ISS i(

( C' .Il I QJ I (I I

...I II-I h,"

CP @,X-Te ts ~vith love nozzle pres ures (not i >eluded ssion'orre ation

~

1. ~

v'*(t " in Linear Regr 3');..s:

. ~

I ~ e(

I". '! h X,

ra'J h ~

IS A (,

~

$ t

(

., -. (8 - 14.5 Psig ; x'- 15.5 sig)

..'-J".*-. 0 10 20 dd Y' Wind Speed - HPII

' ~

' ~

I )aa

~

) 'I r'I ! ~ h

(( na ~ ~ '(

!e

<< ddt

~ h:I I

~ 'I I

r (t I

lf:ga as( ~ > " ~ ~

~

m ~

'a'm ' ~ -'-

ai l 'I~

Ia a ~ I a,

a 1

~

f%' a

~

I ':.': '. ~

If.~,',-',);j C'C

..it>

'. ,~ ~

('

WNP-2

'J>>C:(

'.i~ a.a I'"

I a

Ultimate Heat~Sek S ra S stem J

J ~ )0 s Corre ation o est Performance With Relative Humidit

..'s ~ '.:.

L, j)i K-- m ~

'(e p ~

I,5a J,'Irl a

,t .sea I CJ l "a O Ck m"

.~

~

~ r O

~

~

f~

~ 5 CJ U CJ +20 a )e CL M O

0 ~l 5

(C Cl g

Ja

~ $ - /I )

CL CL O ~

II M0 gm /d ~

j'!(l; (t'. 0

.!III CJ Cl I CJJ s c8 <m ~

g Cl 5 ~ .]f~IJL

~ m

~ 3 Cl Cl gogo s>g

• ~

-li ~: yX a

a-(($

(tl

-20 IIs 2 p//g a$ , ~ r V)

('I l Cl X - Tes with low n zzle pressu e.

J-CJ The umber by ea h data poin is the win vel oci ty.

tl-

~ I ID ~ ~

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

~,

at Relative flumidity -

~

J ~a X

~" ' I Ia

Figure ll P.NP-2 "4

ULTIHATE HEAT SINK SPRAY SYSTEM DRIFT LOSS 3.5

(

3 0

? 5

-- ' 2.0

~

I4

~ ~ I

~ 1.5 9 pper. oun curve CD recommended for UHS eva1uation Test ¹15 ~ J

'1.0

~ ~ 'r I',

1 1\ ~

919. 4 ~

4

~

-0 .5 Cr ¹14 ¹1 7

¹18 Desig er's I 4 Predi tion 4 8, .

Mind Ve1ocity 12.

- t1PH 1G 2 .~.... 24 I

I ~

I 4:WS 144 "

~"

~ 'I V ~

IU