ML18353B146
| ML18353B146 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1978 |
| From: | Hoffman D Consumers Power Co |
| To: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML18353B146 (55) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.--~,-
~;
~-
consumers Power
*~~ .
- .~/<.
company General Offices: 21!2 West Micbigan Avenue, Jackson*, Michigan 49201
- Area Code 517 788-0550 March 9, 1978 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Att: Mr Dennis L Ziemann, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No 2 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 "DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT - IODINE REMOVAL SYSTEM -
PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES 4 Consumers Power Company has completed a reevaluation of the Palisades Plant iodine removal system as required by Amendment 31 to Provisional Operating License DPR-20. The attached proposed Technical Specification changes when implemented will enhance system performance. If possible, the review and approval of this request should be completed prior to plant start-up from our current refueling outage. David P Hoffman Assistant Nuclear Licensing Administrator CC: JGKeppler, USNRC
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket 50-255 Request.for Change to the Technical Specifications License DPR-20 For the reasons hereinafter set forth, it is requested that the Technical Specifications contained in Provisional Operating License DPR-20, Docket 50-255, issued to Consumers Power Company on October 16, 1972 for the Palisades Plant be changed as described in Section I below: I. Changes Change Technical Specifications 3.19.1.a and 3.19.1.b to read as follows: 3.19.1 During power operation, the Iodine Removal System shall be operable with:
- a. The Iodine Removal Hydrazine Tank (T-102) containing 270 +/- 17 gallons of 15.5 +/- 0.5% w/o of hydrazine solution with a cover gas pressure of 11.2 +/- 2 psig.
- b. The Iodine Removal Make-Up Sodium Hydroxide Tank (T-103) containing a minimum 3,900 gallons of 30.0 +/- 0.5% w/o sodium hydroxide* solution.
II. Discussion The attached reports entitled:
- 1. Palisades Plant Iodine Removal System Evaluation dated December 1977,
- 2. Palisades Plant - Special Test Procedure - T-102 Hydrazine Injection System Flow Rate Test .dated March 2, 1978,
- 3. A Hydraulic Evaluation of the Proposed Modification to the Hydrazine Injection System at the Palisades Plant dated March 6, 1978 provide the basis for the proposed change to Technical Specification 3.19.1.a. The preliminary modifications proposed in our December 1, 1977 letter have been reviewed and finalized. As proposed, the volume, hydrazine concentration and nitrogen cover gas pressure of T-102 will be changed from the current conditions. The one-minute time delay has been left in the control circuitry of the T-102 tank discharge valves. It is important to note that system testing and modeling have demonstrated that the gravity feed system will perform as required under all potential plant conditions during an MHA.
The effect of the time delay was very conservatively evaluated (5- and 20-minute delays in hydrazine injection) when performing dose calculations. 1
The changes to Technical Specification 3.19.1.b are proposed to improve system control. The current required tank volume (approximately 93% full). makes it extremely difficult to maintain proper tolerances on liquid level and cover gas volume for a horizontal tank. The change will maintain the same quantity of sodium hydroxide and, therefore, identical pH control capability. The proposed changes will allow for improved system performance over the current required Technical Specifications conditions. III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, both the Palisades Plant Review Committee and the Safety and Audit Review Board have reviewed this proposed change and recommend its approval. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY By Sworn and subscribed to before me this 9th day of March 1978. Thayer, Notar Jackson County, Michigan My commission expires July 9, 1979.
-\
2
IODINE REMOVAL SYSTEM Applicability Applies to the operational status of the Iodine Removal System. Objective To define those conditions when it is necessary. to have the Iodine Removal System operable. Specification 3.19.1 During power operation the Iodine Removal System shall be operable with:
- a. The Iodine Removal Hydrazine Tank (T-102) containing 270 +/- 17 gallons of 15.5 +/- 0.5% w/o of hydrazine solution with a cover gas pressure of
- 11. 2 +/- 2 psig.
- b. The Iodine Removal Make-Up Sodium Hydroxide Tank (T-103) containing a minimum 3,900 gallons of 30.0 +/- 0.5% w/o sodium hydroxide solution.
- c. T-102 capable of supplying hydrazine solution to the water from the SIRW tank (T-58) and T-103 capable of supplying sodium hydroxide solution to the suction header between the containment sump and the spray and injection pumps ..
- d. With the Iodine Removal System inoperable, restore the system to operable status within 72 hours or be in hot shutdown condition within the next 48 hours until operable status is achieved.
Bases The Iodine Removal System acts in conjunction with the containment spray system to reduce the post-accident level of fission products in the containment atmosphere. Hydrazine is added to the water from the SIRW tank after a LOCA to provide for iodine retention. Sodium Hydroxide is added to the recirculated water after a LOCA to establish a neutral pH. References FSAR, Section 6.4. FSAR, Section 14.22. Consumers Power Company Report; "Palisades Plant Iodine Removal System Evaluation," December 1977. Consumers Power Company Report, "A Hydraulic Evaluation of the Proposed Modification to the Hydrazine Injection System at the Palisades Plant," March 6, 1978. 3-84
PALISADES PLANT IODINE REMOVAL SYSTEM EVALUATION Consumers Power Company 212 W. Michigan Ave. Jackson, Michigan 49201 December, 1977
1 PERFORMANCE OF HYDRAZDTE .l\DDITION SYSTEM Our evaluation of the hydrazine addition system as it presently exists indi-cates that the present system is adequate. Under all modes of operation the hydrazine system was found to supply greater than 50 ppm hydrazine in the con-tainment spray water assuming a tank concentration of*50,ooo ppm. The evalua-tion considered both minimum and maximum safeguards flow rates and operation of one or both hydrazine injection lines. *--*----* - Safeguards Injection Lines Time of Time of Switchover Case Flow In Operation Hydrazine Initiation to Recirculation 1 Maximum Both 585 sec 1228 sec 2 Minimum Both 1232 sec 2454 sec 3 Maximum One 294 sec 1228 sec 4 Minimum One 1067 sec 2453 sec Based on the above inf'ormation, we calculate that 10CFRlOO dose limi.ts are not exceeded.during the MHA. Dose calculations were performed as described in Appendix .A. Our evaluation also considered potential hydrazine addition system modification for improved performance. The modification which we propose to test and poten-tially implement is as follows:
- 1. pressurize the hydrazine tank to 10 psig
- 2. eliminate the one-minute timer delay
- 3. increase the hydrazine concentration in the tank to 15~
Pressurization of the tank and elimination of the delay will provide for a nearly immediate injection of hydrazine into the containment spray ~ater. The only delay would be the inherent time required to purge the injection lines - about 30 seconds. Tank pressurization will require that the regulated nitro-gen supply be isolated. during the injection period so that the tank will not . empty too rapidly. The tank hydrazine concentration will be increased to com-pensate for the longer injection period and consequently lower allowed flow rates. A summary of important results of our evaluation of the modified sys-tem are presented below: Safeguards Injection Lines Time of Time of Switchover Case Flow In Operation Hydrazine Initiation to Re.circulation 1 Maximum Both 35 sec 1227 sec 2 Minimum Both 38 sec 2452 sec 3 Maximum One 24 sec 1227 sec 4 Minimum One 29 sec 2451 sec
2 The proposed test would be conducted during the upcoming refueling outage. The hydrazine tank would be filled to normai level with demineralized water and pressurized to 10 psig. Using one low-pressure safety injection pump, water would be pumped from the Safety Injection Refueling Water and hydra-zine tanks to the fuel pool. Tank levels as a function of time would be re-corded for comparison with and verification of the computer simulations. I LONG-TERM pH CONTROL ALTERNATIVES Present NaOH System Our analyses indicate that the present hydroxide system is fully capable of supplying sufficient NaOH to provide post-IOCA recirculating water pH in the range of pH 7 to 8 over the full :range of possible boron concentrations. Table 1 presents pH values for various quantities of hydroxide. Volumes of 23% NaOH in the region between 75 ~3 and 150 ft3 will maintain pH no lower than 7, nor higher than 8 under all possible sets of conditions. Hater sources with maximum and minimum boron concentrations are given in Table 2. Initiation of hydroxide addition shortly following recirculation start -(with-in one hour post-LOCA) will reduce chloride stress corrosion and increase io- - dine partition factor (2) at a time when such action is most beneficial in mitigating offsite consequences of the accident. The increased partition co-efficient reduces iodine loss (3) from out-of-containment coolant leakage to significantly less than the 10% value utilized in the SER. The increased partition coefficient also enhances the recirculation spray affinity for io-dine removal within containment and speeds conversion to iodate.(2) Tri-Sodium Phosphate The possibilities for conversion to a passive buffer (dodecahydrated tri-sodium pho$1)hate) have been investigated. The advantages of early-IOCA pH adjustment would be achieved equally well by either NaOH or TSP. Trisodium phosphate offers the advantages of being a passive in-containment system, and of not being as corrosive as NaOH. Disadvantages of TSP include system bulk (approximately 150 ~3 of TSP must be available on the 590 level), and the engineering effort involved in container design. EFFECT OF TIME DELAY ON HYDRAZDTE VALVES The dynamic flow simulations described in Part (1) "Performance of Hydrazir.e Addition System", indicate that a time delay of at least t minute can be ex-pected due to flow dynamics, whether or not the hydrazine iral*res are open. Thus, the maximum gain in spray time would be t :ninute, were the timer removed. This interv:al represents an approximate l~ dose contribution (1.8 rer:i) of the 18o rem (t-wo-hour site boundary thyroid dose) from containment leakage as anal-yzed in the SER. Although this effect is small, there appears to be no safety problems involved in removing the tir:ier. In keeping with ALAHA policy, the timer should be removed.
3 . ~imm.rrznrG CONSEQUENCES OF PASSIVE. FA II.;tJRES Partition coefficient values will range from 1,100 at pH 7 to 10,000 at pH 8 with 50~ of the 103 moles iodine inventory (radioactive and stable isotopes) for a 2650 MWt core dissolved in 56,000 ft3 of water at 125°C. Sfoce the safe-guards room sumps are covered and room ventilation is isolated upon high ra-diation signal in the ventilation ducting from both rooms, air exchange be-tween the sump airspace and the room will be extremely slow. Assuming low liquid leak rates, air to liquid volume ratios in the sumps could be as high as 100-to-l. At low leak rates then, gas/liquid equilibrium could bring even-. tual iodine escape as high as 100/5,000 or 2i, given a partition coefficient of 5,000 at pH 7.5. In comparison, a partition coefficient of approximately 10 (applicable to unbuffered boric acid) eventually could release essentially all the iodine into the air space of the sump. A.t high leak rates, the sumps will fill to air/liquid ratios less than 10. This* reduces iodine escape to<l0/5,000 =<0.2i. Again, nearly all the iodine even-tually could escape to the air space i f only unbuffered boric acid were in-volved. It is concluded that early pH adjustment to pH 7-8, and limitation of air-space volume above the liquid are the most feasible methods of limitation io-dine escape and thereby mitigating the consequences of passive failures.
lA APPENDIX A - IDSE CALCULATIONS Assumptions
- 1. Pow~r leve 1 - 26 50 MWt
- 2. Core history - 1/3 core: 1 cycle 1/3 core: 2 cycles 1/3 core: 3 cycles
- 3. Exclusion Area Bounda.r"J - 677 meter~, LPZ boundary distance - 4827 meters
- 4. x/Q's from Figures 2(A) and 2(B) of Regulatory Guide 1.4, with building wake factor of 2.35 (0.5A = 1105 m per FSAR 14.22.2.1)
TIME PERIOD {HRS) x(_Q ~sec/m32 LOCATION 0-2 5.2 x lo-4 EAB o-8 6.1 x lo:§ LPZ 8-24 1.3 x 10 LPZ 24-96 4.2 x lo-6 LPZ 96-720 9.1 x 10:~ LPZ 24- 720 (mean) 1.33 x 10 . LPZ
- 5. Containment Spray
- TIME PERIOD IODINE REMOVAL RATE {min-1)
C.l\SE {min2 SOLUTION INORG* INORG** PART* PART:** ORGANIC 1 0-5 BoratedWater .0255 .0145 .0167 .0111 2 0-20 Borated Water .0255 .0145 .0167 .0111 1 5-20 50 ppm N2~ .167 .0278 .0167 .0111 2 20-40 50 ppm N2H2 .167 .0278 .0167 .0111 1 20-15~] Unbuf'f'ered .0127 Recirculation.0127
.0087 .0167 .0111
.0111 2 40-150 .0087 .0167 1&2 150 & pH 7.5 .127 .0262 .0167 .0111 beyond***.
- 6. Containment free volume - 1.64 x 106 ft3
- 7. Sprayed volume - 90'%
- 8. Unsprayed volume - 10'%
- 9. Air exchange between unsprayed and sprayed volumes - 2 unsprayed volumes per hour = 0.033 min-1
- Sprayed Volume
- Unsprayed Volume
- NaOH from T-103, or TSP dissolution, assumed to occur by t=l50 min
- Unsprayed Volume
2A
- 10. Iodine lost from engineered. safeguards room - 4.4% of iodine in leaked liquid volume, t = 20 to t = 50 minutes, 1.35~ of leaked liquid volume beyond 50 min (Ref 5)
- 11. Iodine plateout factor - 2.0
- 12. Recirculation volume (see Table 2* in body of report) - 56,000 ft3
- 13. Core inventory I-131 - 2.51 x io4 Ci/MWt (FSAR 14.22.2.1)
- 14. Dose-per-Curie factors (FSAR 14.22.2.1) - I-131 = 1.48 x 106 ~ad/Curie and other dosimetry assumptions:
CONTA IllMENT BREATHING RATE LEAKAGE RATE TD1E OOSE EQUIVALENCE FACTOR ( m3 /hour) (%PER DAY) Average, 0-120 min 1.82 1.25 0.1 Average, 120-1440 min 1.43 0.795* 0.1 1440 min-30 days 0.346 0.833 0.05
- 15. Fission product release from core:
IODINES NOBLE GASES Release to containment atmos]?here 100% Release to containment liquid Adsorbed on surfaces
- 16. Iodine forms in atmosphere: iodine vapor - 22.75% of core iodine particulate - 1.25% of core organic iodine - 1% of core
- 120~48o @ 1.25, 480-1440 @ 0.630
\' )'
Procedure Iodine removal rates for unbuffered borated water in the sprayed volume were determined by the formula: (3 )
>. = VF HE EQUATION I where: F = spray flow rate (251 ft3/min, FSAR 14.22.2.3) v = sprayed volume (90% of 1.64 x 106 ft3 = 1.48 x 106 ft3)
HE = 150 for injection phase, 75 for recirculation phase Removal rate for boric acid buffered to pH 7 was determined from stagnant fiLm model data provided in Reference 3 , based upon a partition coefficient of 1,100 at pH 7 (3.6 x lo-5 mole iodine/liter of recirculation fluid) per Reference 2
- The value of' 0. :65 min-1 thus obtained was adjusted for a slight difference be-t~..;een the referenced volume flow rate of' 1. 5 x 10- 3 gp_m/ ft3 sorayed volume as compared with the minimum for Palisades of 1.27 x 10-j gpm/ft3. Test data from Reference 3 shows that the slope of ~ as a function of volume flo'W rate has a slope of 163 >i/gprn./ft3. Thus, (163) (A0.23 x lo-3) = 63. 75 x lo-2 >t, and 0.165 -0.0375 = 0.127.
Removal rates for iodine by hydrazine at 50 ppm ( )\ = 0.167 min- 1 ) and for par-ticulates from all sprays (~ = 0.0167 min-1), as used in the SER for Amendment No 31 (Reference 4) were found to ~e consistent with the literature, and 'Were applied to this analysis. Iodine removal rates (~e) for inorganic and particulate iodine within the un-sprayed regions were calculated according to the formula:
>ie = __1_ _ EQUATION II
-1 where: = effective removal rate (min )
= sprayed region removal rate (min-1)
= volume exchange rate between sprayed and unsprayed regions (min- 1 )
4A Iodine remo~al rate constants described above, and as tabulated in Item 5 of the assumptions, were used to determine iodine remaining in the containment atmosphere as a function of time post-I.OCA: EQUATION III
- where CT = iodine as percent of core inventory present in containment atmosphere at time = t co = iodine as percent of core at t=O
)) = removal rate (~ ) in case of sprayed volume, or effective remo~l rate (Ae) for unsprayed volume t = time post-LOCA (min)
Results of calculations for five-minute delay prior to hydrazine addition (case 1) and for 20-minute delay prior to hydrazine addition (case 2) are given in Tables 3 and 4. The amounts of iodine leaked to the environment, as percent of core iodine inventory, also are shown for each calculated time interval and for the cummulative interval.
~ of total iodine ~UATION rl leaked from containment = x * (6.944 x lo-5) (t) during the time interval t 100~
(Tables 3 and 4) vhere: 6.944 x lo-5 = leakage rate (~/min) . t = time interval of leakage (min) x = ~ of total iodine in containment air (Tables 3 and 4)
'f, of tota 1 iodine ~UATION V leaked from safeguards = 0.0272 (50~A) (0.044) (.5) (t) room during the time 56,000 interval t (Table 5) vhere: 0.0272 = leak rate (ft3/min) 56,000 = recirculation water (ft3) 0.044 = see assunrotion 10 A = i of totai iodine in containment air (Tables 3 and 4) 0.5 = iodine plateout factor t = time interval of leakage (min)
J. 5A It is interesting to note that at a leak rate of 0.1% per day, volume leaked equals only 1.14 cubic foot per minute (6.94 x io-7 volume per minute) *. Iodine release for each interval was considered to be at the highest rate determined for that interval (ie, the rate present at the end of the prior interval). Total inorganic iodine reduc-tion was limited to a factor of 100 so that containment atmosphere ;i.t no time reduces below 1.23~ of core inventory (1% organic plus 1/100 x 22.75% in-organic) *. Containment leakage of iodine is converted to Curies of I-131 on the basis that core content equals 6.65 x io7 Ci at 2650 MWt (FSAR 14.22.2.1). The cummula-
- tive leakage at the time of interest divided by seconds in that interval, gives Q for input to the dose equation as follows:
Thyroid I:ose = (Q)(x/Q)(B)(IX:F)(DEF)(t) EQUATION VI where: Q = I-131 release rate (Ci/sec) X/Q =diffusion coeffic3ent (sec/m3) (see assumption 4) B =breathing rate (m /hr) (see assumption 14)
- IlCF = dose conversion factor for I-131 (1.48 x 106 rad/Ci)
DEF = dose equivalency factor to account for iodine isotopes in addition to I-131 (see assumption 14) t = time of release (hr) out-of-containment leakage begins with initiation of recirculation. Half the core inventory of iodine is assumed present in the 56,000 ft3 of recirculation
~ater at this time. Release of iodine from a maximum leak rate of 0.20 gpm (0.0272 ft3/min) occurs as described in assumption 10. Amounts of I-131 ~hich escape to the environment from the safeguards room are* given in Table v.
.) 6A Conclusions Dose to thyroid fromboth containment and out-of-containment leakage is deter-mined according to Equation VI. Thyroid doses are as follows: CONT LEAK EX-CONT LEAK TOTAL DOSE CASE TIME PERIOD LOCATION (Rem) (Rem) (Rem) 1 . 0-2 hrs EAB 149 8.1 157 2 0-2 hrs EAB 174 5.0 179 1 o-8 hrs
- LPZ 30. 5 3.19 33.7 2 o-8 hrs
- LPZ 33.0 2.83 35.8 1 8-24 hrs LPZ 2.63 .493 3.12 2 8-24 hrs LPZ 2.63 .493 3.12 1 2J hr- 30 d LPZ 1.85 0.71 2.56 2 24 hr-30 d LPZ 1.85 0~71 2.56 1 0-30 d LPZ 35.0 4.39 39.4 2 0-30 d LPZ 37.5 4.03 41.5
------------------~--------------------------------------------------------
- 0-2 hr values for Breathing Rate and DEF applied for 0-8 hr dose computation.
It is determined that dose to thyroid for both the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and low population zone (LPZ) residents are below 10CFRlOO criteria. Total body dose criteria of 10CFRlOO are met per original calculations of the FSAR. Total body dose has not been re-evaluated because iodine removal spray does not enter into the calculation.
APPENDIX B Tables
- 41 e pH Vs NaOH Volume e
lB TABLE 1 100°C 25°C Calculated Observed NaOH Min Max Added Boron Boron Min Max Min Max 23"Wti (1584 ppm) (24oo ppm) Boron Boron Boron Boron 0 4.756 4.573 4.666 4.026 4.6 4. 100 tt 3 7.654 7.283 7.598 7.478 7.8 7.3 200 tt3 8.033 7.661 8.478 7.502 8.25 7.8 300 rt 3 8.291 7.918 8.623 7.833 8.55 7.1 400 ft3 8. 500 8.123 8.70 8.168 8.80 8.35 500 ti) 8.683 8.296 8.958 8.415 9.02 8.6 600 ft3 8.854 8.450 9.165 8.635 700 ft3 9.023 8.588 9.400 8.836
2B TABLE 2 T:rnE VOLUME MAX PPM MIN PPM t=O 7,8oo ft 3 1,070 0 PCS t=O 8,130 ft3 2,000 0 CWRT t=O 1,740 ft3 17, 500 11,000 CBAT t=O 4,ooo ft] 2,000 1,720 SI Bottles (4) t=0-+20 min 34,ooo ft 3 2,000 1,720 SIRW 10, 900 gpm to 45 min @ 5,476 gpm t=20-45 & on recirculation at nominal rate of 4,900 gpm
- by 4 hr <:l.OO ft3 23.0 _:: 0.5~ :NaOH to give pH 7.0
w TABLE 3 w
*case 1 Hydrazine Flow from t=5 min to t=20 min TIME A INORGANIC UNSPRAYED PART *ORGANIC 'IDTAL LEAKED l1 (MIN) (hr-1} (0.9 x ~} {0.1 x ~} {0.9~} ~0.1~} (~) __J1iJ. 6{~ x io- 5) i:Ji x 10- )
0 20.1~75 2.275 1.125 0.125 1.0 25.0 0-5 1. 53/1.0 18.02 2.27 1.035 0.118 1.0 22.44 8.68 o.868 5-7. 5 10/1.0 11.88 2.12 0.993 0.115 1.0 16.11 3.90 1.258
- 7. 5-10 10/1.0 7.83 1.98 0.952 0.112 1.0 11.87 2.Bo 1.538 10-12.5 10/1.0 5.16 1.84 0.913 0.108 1.0 9.02 2.06 1.744
- 12. 5-15 10/1.0 3.110 1.72 0.876 0.106 1.0 7.10 1.57 1.901 15-20 10/1.0 1.48 1.50 o.8o6 0.100 1.0 4.89 2.47 2.148 20-30 o. 763/1.0 1.30 1.37 0.682 0.090 1.0 4.44 3.39 2.487 30-ISO o. 763/1.0 0.890 1.038 o.4111. 0.061~2 1.0 3.406 9.24 3.411 90 o. 763/1.0 0.608 0.788 0.251 0.046 1.0 2.69 7.10 4.121 120 o. 763/1.0 o.415 0.598 0.152 0.033 1.0 2.197 5.610 4.682 150 7 .6/1.0 0.009 0.271 0.092 0.024 1.0 1.396 4.577 5.1110 18() 0.123 0.056 ' 0.017 1.0 1.196 2.908 5.431 beyond lBO 1.23 180-8 hr . 1.23 25.6 7.994 8-?'1 hr 1.23 82.0 16.19 1-30 d 0.612 i, 770 1911
_f:- TABLE 4 t>> case 2 Hydrazine Flow from t=20 min to t=40 min TIME :>i TOORGANIC UNSPRAYED PART {~} ORGANIC 'IDTAL LEAKED (MIN) (hr- 1 ) (0.9~} {01.~} 0.9 0.1 (~} ffi_ {A.~lxio-5 ri.~~xio-5 0 20.475 2.275 1.125 0.125 1.0 25.00 0-2.5 1. 53/1.0 19.210 2.194 1.079 0.122 1.0 23.605 4 .340 4. 3!10
- 2. 5-5 l. 53/1.0 18.024 2.116 1.035 0.118 1.0 22.293 4.098 8.438 e 5-7. 5 1. 53/1.0 16.910 2.0111 0.993 0.115 1.0 21.059 3.870 12.308
- 1. 5-10 1. 53/1.0 15.867 1.969 0.952 0.112 1.0 19.900 3.656 15. 9611 10-12. 5 1. 53/1.0 14.886 1.899 0.913 0.108 1.0 . 18.8o6 3 .1155 19.419 12.5-15 1. 53/1.0 13.970 1.832 0.876 0.106 1.0 17.784 3.265 22.68h
] 5-17. 5 1. 53/1.0 13.104 1. 767 o.8110 0.102 1.0 16.813 3.087 25.771
- 17. 5-20 l. 53/1.0 12.295. 1.704 o.8o6 0.100 1.0 15.905 2.919 28.690 20-22.5 10/1.0 8.105 1.590 0.773 0.097 1.0 11. 565 2. 761 31.451 22.5-25 10/1.0 5.343 1.483 0.742 0.0911 1.0 8.662 2.008 33.459 25-30 10/1.0 2.322 1.291 0.682 0.090 1.0 5.383 3.008 36.467 30-35 10/1.0 1.009 1.123 0.628 0.085 1.0 3.845 i.870 38.337 35-40 10/1.0 0 .1139 0.978 0.578 o.o8o 1.0 3.075 1.335 39.672 110-60 o. 763/1.0 0.340 0.814 o.414
- 0.064 1.0 2.632 4.271 4 3. 9113 60-90 o. 763/i.o 0.232 0.617 0.251 0.046 1.0 2.146 5.483 49.426 98-120 o. 763/1.0 0.159 o.1168 0.152 0.033 1.0 1.812 4.471 53.897
TABLE li. \.J1 (Continued) ll:I Case 2 Hydrazine Flo~ from t=20 to t=4o min LEAKED TIME A INORGANIC UNSPRAYED PJ\RT (1>) ORGANIC 'roTAL ( MIN ) _ -1)_ (hr {0.9~} {0.1~) 0.9 0.1 {~) _{1l_ '(4%)x10*5 (z'fi)x10 5 120-150 o. 763/1.0 0.108 0.355 0.092 . 0.024 . 1.0 1.579 3.775 57.672 150-18o 7 .6/1.0 0.002 0.161 0.056. 0.017 1.0 1.236 3.290 60.962 18o-210 7 .6/1.0 0.073 0.034 *0.012 1.0 .::::i.228 2.575 63.537 beyond 210 <=l.228 2.558 66.095 0-8 hr 86. 5l1 86.54 8-24 hr 81.86 168.4 1-30 d 178o 1948.
6B
.e TABLE 5 Out-of-Containment Leakage (Safeguards Room)
CASE TD1E (MDI) A'fo OF CORE ~°fa OF CORE 1 20-50 1.46 x lo-~ i.46 x lo-~ 2 40-50 5.01 x lo- 5.01 x 10-o 1 50-120 1.06 x io-5 2. 52 x io-5 2 50-120 i.06 x lo-5 1. 55 x lo-5 1 beyond 120 1.64 x 10-~min 2. 52 x io-5+1.64 x 10-~t 2 beyond 120 1.64 x 10- /min 1. 55 x 10-5+1.64 x 10- At 1 0-8 hr 8.42 x lo-5 8.42 x lo-{ 2 o-8 hr 7.45x io-5 7.4 5 x io-4 4 1 8-24 hr 1.54 x io- 4 2.38 x lo- 4 2 8-24 hr 1.54 x 10- 2 .. 29 x io-1 1-30 d 6.76 x lb-33 7.00 x io:-~ 2 1-30 d 6.76 x 10- 6.99 x 10--'
APPENDIX C Referenc~s
- 1. USNRC "Calculational Error Affecting the Design Performance of a System for Controlling pH of Containment SUmp Water Following a LOCA". IE Bulletin No 77-04. (November 4, 1977).
- 2. L. F. Parsly "Design Considerations of Reactor Containment Spray Systems -
Part IV". ORNL-TM-2412, Part IV. (January, 1970).
- 3. A. K. Postma and w. F. Paseday, "A Review of Mathematical Models for Pre-dicting Spray Removal of Fission Products in Reactor Containment Vessels".
WASH-1329. (June 15, 1973).
- 4. USNRC "Safety Evaluation by the Office of' Nuclear Reactor Regulation SuJ>port-ing Amendment No 31 to Provisional Operating License No DPR-20". (November 1, 1977).
- 5.
- R. A. English "Palisades Plant - Radiation Release to Atmosphere from SIRW Tank Vent" RAE 46-77, AIR SP-77-11. (August 18, 1977).
- APPENDIX D Neutralization of Boric Acid Solutions With Sodium Hydroxide and Trisodium Phosphate December 14, 1977 Ability to maintain pH at or slightly above neutral in the event of a loss of coolant accident in a PWR is of concern relative to corrosion of system materials and the attendant generation of hydrogen. On this basis, NWT was requested by Consumers Power Company to evaluate the pH variation associated with addition of 237. soditim hydroxide and granular trisodium phosphate to various so.lutions of boric acid which could be released *in the event of an incident. The five major sources of bo~ic acid with maximum and minimum concentrations are given in Table l. Consideration was given to the primary coolant system, two 50%
full clean waste receiver tanks, the concentrated boric acid tank, 'four safety injection bottles, and the SIRW tank. Neutralization of the total mixture of 6 approximately 3.3(10 ) pounds of water at maximum and minimum boron concen-trations of 2406 ppm and 1584 ppm, respectively, was evaluated. Table 1: Boric Acid Solution Sources Boric Acid as *EEm B Source *volume Maximum Minimum Primary Coolant System 7,800 1,070 0 Clean Waste Receiver Tanks 8,130 2~000 0 Concentrated Boric Acid Tank 1, 740 17,500 11,000 Safety Injection Bottles (4) 4,000 2,000 l, 720 SIRW Tank 34,000 2,000 1, 720 Boric acid equilibrilll!l relations were obtained from reference l and phosphoric acid relations from reference 2. Association of sodium with any ion was assumed negligible. The specific gravity of the 23 wt 7. sodium hydroxide solution in Tl03 was taken as 1.25 from reference 3. The apparent bulk density of granular trisodium phosphate 12-hydrate was measured and found to be approximately 0.89. The effect of small lithium concentrations on the pH of the solutio.ns subsequent to addition of the ini.tial amounts of sodium hydroxide or trisodium phosphate was neglected.
ff'". To support the analytical solutions on the neutralization reactions, laboratory tests were also performed. In these tests, approximately 800 ml of boric acid solution was titrated while continuously stirring and purging with nitrogen (99. 998% pure). The titration was performed with* granular trisodium phosphate dodecahydrate and 23 wt % sodium hydroxide. The pH meter was an Orion 601A digital ion analyzer. An Orion combination pH electrode was employed. After each titrant addition, the solution was allowed to stabilize to 0.01 pH units. With sodium hydroxide addition, the readings stabilized within 2 to 5 minutes. With granular trisodium phosphate, readings stabilized within approximately 15 *minutes. The phosphate titration was checked by back ~itrating with boric acid over the high range of the curve. Results were verified to 0.035 pH units. Results of the analytical laboratory test program at room temperature are summarized in Figure$ 1 and 2. In Figure 1, the variation of solution pH with additions of 23 wt i. sodium hydroxide is presented. As shown, the experimental and analytical results are in reasonable agreement at both the minimum and maximum boron concentrations. In general., the analytical predictions seem to underestimate the actual pH of the system several tenths of a pH unit at higher amounts of titrant. Results of the neutralization with granular trisodium phosphate are presented in Figure 2. As for the case of sodium hydroxide neutralization, the analytical results appear to underestimate the achieved solution pH at a given addition of trisodium phosphate. Corresponding analytical results at 100°C are presented for consideration in Figures 3 and 4. These are of interest since the solutions remain near boiling in the hypothesized incident. Neutral pH values are presented for reference. As shown, smaller amounts of titrant are required to achieve neutral pH at
- the higher temperature. This results from the temperature variation* of the equilibrium relations predominantly for boric acid. A specific reason for
the differences observed between the experimental and analytical results relative to the pH variation during neutralization is not known. However, it seems likely that variations in the equilibrium relations with ionic strength for water, borate, and phosphate solutions whieh were obtained in media different from those considered in the course of developing the analytical results probably are the prime source of error. References
- l. Mesmer, R. E., Baes, C. F., Jr. and Sweeton, F. H., -"Boric Acid Equilibria and pH in PWR Coolants", Proceedings, 32nd International Water Conference, November 1971, pp. 55-65.
- 2. Mesmer, R.* E. and Baes, C. F., Jr., "Phosphoric Acid Dissociation Equilibria in Aqueous Solutions to 300°C", Journal of Solution Chemistry, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1974, pp. 307-322.
- 3. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, John li. Perry, Editor in Chief, Textbook Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1950, Table III, p. 182.
1--*** 3 1584 ppm Boric Acid 0 0 as Boron ~ ~~-S: it~: ~* *L~~ :f~~~ 2406 ppm Boric Acid- 0 :j. ~+/-!=Ffif i~~ ::~~: ~::-~ ~#£ as Boron pH = -log pH -log Additions of 23 wt % NaOll,
9 8 9* ~7 6 Experimental, Calculated, 19°C-21°C 25°C 1, 584 ppm Boric 0 0 Acid as Boron 2,406 ppm Boric 0 5 Acid as Boron
-log [H+ ] pH ..:.1og 4
500 1000 .1500 Additions of Na_P0.*12 H_O.
t; .*.* 0 100 200 300 400 Additions of 23 wt % NaOll,
.:J.J ...* ::-r:::- J ~_: _ j. :*.:~_: _ : .* :: _: ~_ -.:~_ - ~- 1_i :_t-:'.' -.1 ;_:~.- *~_,*_-~:_:~_ ut: ,****rlil! ,)f, *"' ~ , ~HI +,;l ;J, ~~.:~*I---1--J.,-:t.;.-r~-t--~-~~----.:;~+ *t4::J j**
,.'._.;:_i_ *.-.:..._.. cc- L,L,
*h *
- i*** + , ;-;I -1,r ,, ****** L,_ *--- **-**- --,, ..... ,. ***** ******* ** ,... ,.
- 9 8
~.* *. * *:***~**;*** -~l."1 **j * * ~~-- :.!-*-1,=.::::.:. :.:..:::.*,::.::: _::.: ::*::!:'r"i:.*I, c., . ...:..::.:__ :-:trlf:!_::::':...:.:::....:::.:'.'.:r**fi: .-l. *****h---*** *+- ***-~------**---*-*--**-**** ...... * - * * * -
- .*-: :-. : .*/. '-*...... - :* 1 __ -~-~*--: *:_:*_r-:.:* ..-::::*1__--:*:--.....:=:-::-:-.:::-=-:.f.~rf t°L~=~-=-=-=-=--=-:~r*.:r1.:.::;.:-==*-;;--r.: . '-~ *i:::-_:.*._* *_:__,...~.**.:.::
..- ri::_~,...._.,
J-1-:. :r_,~.*.-_*--.*___ ....:: :.-.:.,...:_-'
-- :..,;,.: -~=-:=--;~=T=~*~:---.---*---.-**:*-.*:*::.:::::..:..:
*i**** ... -*-* ..
- -::=-=- -- r.: ~--r~=== ~ ::*q ~-=-~'=::. .:.:::::::'"::::::- :-:::; f-irr ~HT-==:-.:_~ *.:* *EtE ;:.,__ft *--w.~::m~J:§?+/-:m:::t:::::*s-ji- ~?.:~::::~::~:::::~ rr~.~-
- 7 .~.-
- _ *
- _..~_:;[), :://_.***:___.*z*,~/./_*:.I~L.:
;:~*_, . _*.: ,.*:_.- *:_/* *_~ :_* :_ *. _: ., _:~ : *.~_:. :*=-_.*: -*_.-~:.l't,*~:;=*~-:.*;_ -~ ._ :*~-_ ;'* .:=_*:.
..::* __*:_../<::._*_::-: . ::=. .
____ ..:*..... -.: : :- .:.:.-* :- -~_;-:_* ,.'_:fi,'._: ~.__:*,"_~:.-_:=-~ _:. ~- _.:~-:*_~_:_-: _.:..-_~.'" -*~,r;*=.-:* .:-_ . _:,.-*-~*-:~*- *:. t,,~;:...*,-,..~*r:.* ;_.: t.~i1-:._*~:,-* :=;~-._ - -~ -~=:. =.-_ : ~- *_=-:"._- ~.: -.: t_h~-.*i:_t'.* ,- _ 1:* . ~-.*'=*;:-'_:~-*.~:'I~- ~*.;_*~ fH- .
*('*" .
__ .;:, :ti :filt ft . ,. ,.". . 1 *- +*- :i:;.~ P.-::.r F;:-,..::_:.::::.:: if~-= =
~ii -rir~ ~Ju;;'.~ :~f~1f.§ _~~~~~: 1m'~
6
-J; ..
! ~ ::
5 - 4
.. j 500 1000 2oor:
Additions of ,. ;'!rt. PO.* 17 H ().
PALISADES PLANT Special Test Procedure T-102 Hydrazine Injection System Flow Rate Test CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 212 W Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 March 2, 1978
SPECIAL TEST PROCEDURE T-102 Hydrazine Injection System Flow Rate Test
Purpose:
The test of the Iodine Removal System was peformed to demonstrat~ that the following modifications will improve system performance. The modifications are:
- 1. Pressurize the hydrazine tank (T-102) to 10.7 psig.
- 2. Increase the hydrazine concentration to 15 weight percent.
- 3. Reduce the hydrazine volume to approximately 270 gallons.
The test results will be used for comparison with, and verification of, computer simulations of the Palisades Plant Iodine Removal System incorporating the above proposed modifications. The scope of the test, therefore, included the collection of data generated from operation of the Iodine Removal System incorporating the four modifications described above. The data were then supplied to the Nuclear Activities Depart-ment for.analysis. Precautions to Insure Reactor Safety: A Safety Evaluation for the test was completed. Two concerns for reactor safety were discussed and evaluated in the Safety Evalua-tion. The first was the addition of a quantity of unborated water into the core .region. This condition could occur if there was no flow from the SIRW tank when CV-3031 or CV-3057 was opened. If this occurred coincidently with the opening of CV-0437A or CV-0437B and the starting of one of the low-pressure safety injection pumps, the contents of T-102 (plant PMW) could be injected into the core. The problem was addressed in the Special Test.Procedure. Prior to starting the opening of the T-102 discharge valve, two conditions had to be met:
- 1. The SIRW tank discharge valve (CV-3031 or CV-3057) had to open and,
- 2. The low-pressure safety injection pump was started and flow through FIC-0306 must have had to be greater than 2500 gpm.
Mixing of flow from T-102 and the 2500 gpm minimum flow from the SIRW tank in the LPSI pump insured no unborated water entered the core region. 1
The second concern was the reduction in boron concentration in the SIRW due to the addition of 275 gallons of primary make-up water. The calculations from the Safety Evaluations indicated a reduction in boron concentration in the SIRW of less than 2 ppm. Results: The test results are included in this report and attached as Appendix A. The test was completed on February 28, 1978. Figure 1 is the graph of the percent level of the SIRW tank versus time. The graph indicates the constant rate of discharge of the tank as expected. Figure 2 indicates the change in tank level of T-102 as a function of time. The portion of the curve labeled "A" indicates a slope of 3.6%/min which corresponds to a flow rate of approximately 13.8 gallons/min. After this initial surge of water the flow rate from the tank decreased until 5 minutes after beginning the test. The slope of the line after 5 minutes appears to be constant and be equal to 0.273%/min which corresponds to a flow rate from T-102 of 1.05 gallons/min; (Review of vendor's drawings indicates a total tank volume of 456 gallons and volume between the level transmitters located at 11'6" and 0 1 6" to be 384 gallons. This corresponds to 3.84 gallons/% on level indicator. Therefore, t:he flow is 0.237%/min* 3.84 gallons/%= 1.05 gallons/min). Assuming 15 weight percent hydrazine in T-102, one can calculate the concentration of hydrazine available to the spray heads with the following equation:
- f. = Flow Rate From T-102 (Gpm) 1 Hydrazine Concentration From T-102 = 0.15 x 106 Ppm fT = Total Flow to Spray Header (From FIC-0306 = 3000 Gpm)
Hydrazine Concentration to Spray Header (Unknown) 6
= 0.15 x 10 Ppm
- 1.05 Gpm = 52. 5 Ppm 3000 Gpm The required concentration of hydrazine is 50 ppm.
2
The calculations performed by the writer indicate satisfactory performance of the iodine removal system as tested. with the modifications proposed by the Nucle*ar Activities Department Recommendations for Further Action: The writer recomme.nds that the data from Special Test Procedure T-102 be submitted to the Nuclear Activities Department for comparison to and verification of computer simulations of the Palisades Plant Iodine Removal System. 3
[ "' PA.DES NUCLEAR PLANT- PROC HO T-103
.i~
r.-* f':'W
\~~.._.'j~/
SPECIAL TEST PAGE 6 REVISIO~I Of 6 0 TITLE~ Consumers Power HYDRAZINE INJECTIO~* SYSTD1 FLOW RATE DATE TEST ('l'-102) Form T-103-B Data Sh2et T-102 SIRH Tank D2te/!ime Level Pressure Date/Time Level Initial Conditions % Tank (psi) Level 2/28/78 2240 60% 10.7 2241 90% Start 2243
. 2244 56% Hissed reading 2243 90%
/
I 2246 2248 50/~ 49% 6 5.5 2245 2247 88% 85.5% 2250 48% 5.3 2249 84% __ .)_
-~ ') - '1 48% -5 .1 2251 82%
2254 47% 4.9 2253 79. 9% 2256 46.5~~ 4.7 2255 77~~ 2258 46% 4.5 2257 75% 2300 45.8% 4.3 ***-- 2259 - 72. S/; 2302 45% \ 11 .2 230:!. 71% -- . 2304 44.1% 4.0 --2-363 .. *--* 68% 2306 44.0% 4.0 2305 66.n I 2303 43.8% 3.8 2307 64 .1% I 2 3 L:J
- 43% 3.6 2309 6 ...'I'/'°
! Stop Test 2310 3000 gn::i flow (total) chr~u!j flow concroll2r valve
~o indi23tion of pressure loss from I-102 FCV-031)6 orio:?:: tG test. ii.eld at 10. 7 fo:::- ::5 min .=.:cc a~ 12 ~5~ for 15 min.
I L
100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
!. I I I I
I I I I
. I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
' I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
! I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I 90 ~!'..' I I I I I I I I
.... I I I I I I I I
~
I I I I I I .......... I I I
...... ! I i I r..... I
~ I I I
' I I..., I I 80 ....
1' I ......
""' r..... I I ....
70 I.., I :-... I ....... I I ........ 60 I I _...... I I
~ -I I w 50 I w -I ~
I I z I- 40 I I I 30 I I I FIGURE 1 I I I 20 SIRW tank level as a function of time after beginning of test (y axis in °lo tank level) I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I 1--l-+-~ I I I I I l .. I ! i I i :
**: l
~1-.
I i l :
,J I'
' I I !
I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 TIME (MIN)
OC ! I I I I
!I I I I I !- ! i I I .'I . I I
' I I I I i I I ,
I I I I I
*1 I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I !
I I I I I I I I I I i I I ! I I I I I I I I ! I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 - I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I
! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I !
I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I 7C I I I I I I I 6Cl I I
-~
A Slope A= 3.6o/o /min
...I
;,* I I
.... I w 5C ,....._
., 8 I
w
...I I I I I I I I '
I I I I Slope B = 0.273% /min 4C I I I I > I 3C I I I I I I 2C I
- I FIGURE 2 -'"!"""
I SI RW tank level as a
-f--
function of time after beginning of test ( y axis in °/o tank level f-- 10 I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I Ii::-~ - , I I I I . I I I I I ,I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 5 10 . I.:> ...:U. 30 TIME (MIN)
A HYDRAULIC EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE HYDRAZINE INJECTION SYSTEM AT THE PALISADES PLANT Consumers Power Company 212 W. Michigan Ave. Jackson, Michigan 49201 March 6, 1978
I. Introduction The present hydrozine injection system consists of a tank (T-102) filled with 390 gallons of a 5 w/o hydrazine solution and pressurized to about 0.1 psig with a regulated nitrogen supply. The tank is connected to the suction of the containment spray pumps just below the SIRW tank via two 2 11 lines as shown on piping and in-strument diagram M-204 (figure 1). Several problems associated with the present design, but which do not exist for the modified design, are listed below:
- 1. Due to the elevation difference between the initial water level in the SIRWT and that in T-102, injection of hydrazine would be delayed by at least 6 minutes and possibly by as much as 20 minutes.
- 2. A single failure of a pressure control valve in the nitrogen supply system could incapacitate the system.
In the modified system T-102 is filled with 270 gallons of a 15 w/o hydrazine solution and pressurized to approximately 11 psig. However in the modified system the tank is not on a regulated nitrogen supply and therefore the single failure problem discussed above does not apply. Pressurizing the tank to 11 psig results in an almost immediate injection of hydrazine once containment spray is actuated. The only delays inherent in the system are: (1) A one-minute intentional delay on the opening of hydrazine injection system valves CV-0437A and CV-0473B; and, (2) the time required to purge the injection lines of hydrazine - free water (normally less than 50 seconds). This evaluation utilized a computer model which is described in Section II. The computer model was verified against an actual plant test. The test and model veri-fication are discussed in Section III. The sensitivity studies that were conducted to determine the adequacy of the modified system are discussed in Section IV. The results and the recommended operating limits are discussed in Section V.
2 II. Computer Model The RETRAN computer code(l) was used to simulate the transient response of the hydrazine injection system. The model that was employed is shown on Figure 2. The model consists of six volumes and six junctions. Tank and piping dimensions were taken from actual plant drawings. III. Model Verification A test of the hydrazine system was run on 2/28/78 during the refueling outage. The test consisted of pumping down the SIRWT into the refueling cavity with a single low pressure injection pump. The pump was started and the valves in the associated discharge lines from the SIRWT and T-102 were opened at 2243. The valves in the discharge lines running to the header associated with the alternate low pressure safety injection pump were le~ closed. Readings of T-102 level and pressure and of SIRW',t' level were .taken every two minutes during the test. The test. was terminated at 23:10. The test results are tabulated on *Table 1. The test was simulated in RETRAN using the basic model shown on Figure 2. The model was initialized at conditions identical to that of the test. T-102 level= &Y/o = 7.25 ft. above bottom weld T-102 pressure = 10.7 psig at pressure tap which is 3.5 ft. above bottom weld SIRWT level = 9oc/o = 21.75 ft. above bottom weld A flow rate of 3015 gpm was assumed. Inspection of the test results indicate that the average flow out of the SIRWT was 3015 gpm. The measured flow past FCV-0306 was 3000 gpm during the test. (l)"RETRAN - A Program for One-Dimensional Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, Volume 1: Equations and Numerics", Electric Power Research Institute, NP-408, January 1977.
3 Results of the computer simulation are shown on figures 3 through 5. The actual test results are shown on these figures as well. Referring to figures 3 and 4, it is seen that the model accurately predicts the levels in the T-102 and in the SIRWT as a function of time. As s~own on figure 5, the model slightly overpredicts the pressure in T-102 as a function of time. The worst error is less than 0.7 psig. Based on this comparison it was concluded that the model accurately predicts the actual situation in the plant, and therefore can be used to determine the adequacy of the modified system. IV. Sensitivity Studies A number of sensitivity studies were conducted to evaluate the performance of the modified hydrazine injection system. The effects of the following variables on system performance were evaluated.
- 1. Engineered safeguards flow rate.
- 2. Single failure of a T-102 discharge valve.
- 3. T-102 pressure.
- 4. T-102 level.
The cases evaluated are listed on Table 2. V. Results and Recommended Operating Limits The results of each of the seven cases are summarized on figures 6 through 12. Each figure shows containment spray water hydrazine concentration as a function of time after the opening of the hydrazine injection valve(s). Also shown on each figure is the time required to purge the hydrazine i~jection lines of hydrazine-free water, the time at which switch over to recirculation would occur, and the level in .T-102 at switchover.
4 Cases 1 through 4 indicate the sensitivity of the system performance to engineered safeguards flow rate and to a possible failure* of a hydrazine injection valve to open. The system performs adequately (i.e. hydrazine concentration is greater than 50 ppm) over the required range of engineered safeguards flow rate, even when a failure of an injection valve is considered. The hydrazine concentra-tion does fall below 50 ppm very briefly in the early part of the transient for cases 2 and 4. This would have little impact on the MHA dose. Cases 5 through 7 were conducted to determine the sensitivity of system perfor-mance to the initial pressure and level in T-102. Case 5 shows that even assuming the highest engineered safeguards flow rate, the highest allowed T-102 nitrogen pressure (13.2 psig), and the lowest allowed T-102 level, T-102 does not empty prior to switchover. Cases 6 and 7 illustrate that even assuming the lowest engineered safeguards flow, the highest allowed T-102 level, and the lowest allowed T-102 nitrogen pressure (9.2 psig), the system's performance is adequate (i.e. it provides 50 ppm hydrazine in the containment spray water for all but a very brief period during the transient). The recommended hydrazine injection system operating limits are as follows: T-102 level: 7,09 ,:!: 0.5 ft. above bottom weld (270.5 ,:!: 17.5 gallons) T-102 N2 pressure: 11.2 + 2.0 psig T-102 hydrazine concentration: 15.5 _: 0.5 w/o
TABLE 1 - TEST RESULTS T-102 SIRWT Time Level Pressure Time Level 2243 6o1o 10.7 psig 2243 903 2244
*2246 56 50 missed reading 6
2245 2247 88 85.5 e, 2248 .49 5.5 2249 84 2250 . 48 5.3 2251 82 . 2252 48 5.1 2253 79.9 2254 47 4.9 2255 77 2256 46.5 4.7 2257. 75 2258 46 4.5 2259 72.5 2300 45.8 4.3 2301 71 2302 45 4.2 2303 68 2304 44.1 4.o 2305 66.2 2306 44 4.o 2307 64.1 2308 43.8 3.8 2309 62 2310 43 3.6
TABLE 2 - CASES EVALUATED T-102 Safeguards Nitrogen T-102*** SIRWT*** Single Case No. Flow Pressure Level Level Failure 1 2 3 maximum* minimum** maximum 10.2 psig 10.2 10.2 6.59 ft. 6.59 6.59 22.33 ft. 22.33 22.33 none none T-102 discharge valve 4 minimmn 10.2 6.59 22.33 T-102 discharge valve 5 maximum 13.2 6.59 22.33 none 6 minimum 9.2 7.59 22.33 none 7 minimum 9.2 7.59 22.33 T-102 discharge valve
- Assumes 3 containment spray pumps, 3 high pressure injection pumps, and 2 low pressur~
safety injection pmnps at runout flow.
** Assumed to be 5Cfl/o of maximum safeguards flow.
*** Above bottom weld.
i" I I II I I I I f!"l 11 l11 l"I JOS* H
- . ~p SA>ETY
~ HJJ'::C.i101-J PUMP P*C.C.C G
~p SAl'E:TY IN JE:CTIO>J ?ul.IP
~
I I
'*~~
J I I 1 I r--~~010-,.1~
, ~ LJilli),.......,""
0
'g?' l..:!!.I c
0 O!I NOTES "MCC-101-z.*1..cc*IOt*z.* SMALL a: TIE'D I, UHi!. ro OW6. l*\.?O'J !=Oil !o.UE(,U*rl:O~
~~
0 11:) £;U5TIH6 ~Pllili6 AT Et.. IOJ9'*0". . PUMP~ cco1.t1.1(J Q:~r.oo;.~ 1.0 \ t I O:***I'"
~:(.A~: *~~~~!~/~~~?.TIE'1.
7 AU.. '/~l.}/E SUFFI)(.[~ A!N"ES,. 2H'U. ro OWG. M*'Zll :=cit SAHGl.1,1\RD*i ROOM'!! SUMi~. 1-"l--'"4=~=-===..:.:::::-'ic-~~!!llo~+...I "l{ISS ~~T~*C.A5.1WH..r Q.l*U*.S:i Of\.+EIZ- .s. u~ TO CNIG. "l!l~'!>>*Gr9Go*l(C! O'liG. 2""* 0*~104) ~Oil 1..P. ~.t..n:l'"'t' 1..,JCGTIO... llCHTIL
~1.J\.I~ VI.UT ..,._,0 01.41"" =7tPl\JQ.
4- o.tm iO C1'\'r'6.1J.~~~**.S*l(C.£ OV6:U"'* PALISAO!S PLANT cr-sc.e1)~.:£ ;t.P.~WCT'T 1i.1J!c.T10""' COHSUMElS POWEi COMPANY
*~MP1' Vli.JT .. 1..10 Oll~IN .Dt?li..lQ;.
/'tj\ ~*t$fs tSv\~ s ::;:£-rE11.. "to P'11: tio.....:au...., M*U5 Rn ~ .LlNITRllH?: MT:-'11A~
~7!J f /~~ ::.oo.irn.i:a. 11,,i:z. wrruo1 NT**-~ *~JIWtrn:,._. C.OWTAJHM~WT SPRAY I ~---~~~~-~--*----- ~TDOWN COOLING SYSTEM S :'t
~~~~~~~--',=<-*=**-*~~-'@r-~---~ L. ('~
~~~~~~~~lffil~~~~:'..(s~93~sJ:::~~~.~za~*~~
~
' c 5
FIGURE 1
" I SIRW TANK T-102 VOLUME 4 VOL 1 JUNCTION 1 JUNCTION 3 T-102 v
DISCHARGE 2 v PIPING 3 JUNCTl0N 2 STRWT JUNCTION 6 DISCHARGE PIPING V 6 JUNCTION 4 v 5 JUNCTION 5 ENGINEERED SAFEGUARDS PUMPS FIGURE 2 COMPUTER MODEL
CJ TEST DATA*~ z <( a.. If) 50 u.. 0 ~ ....I w w ....I
~
0 10 20 30 40 TIME I MINUTES FIGURE 3 MODEL VERIFICATION - T-102 LEVEL VS TIME
TEST DATA6. z z; ~ ti) "+- 0 ~ w 70 w 0 10 20 30 TIME, MINUTES FIGURE 4. MODEL VERIFICATION - SIRWT LEVEL VS TIME
TEST DATA 6.
- U>
Cl. ui 0:: ~ w 0:: a.. 10 20 30 TIME MINUTES I FIGURE 5: MODEL VERIFICATION-T-102 PRESSURE
E Q. Q. z 100 0 I-
<(
a::: I-zw u z 0 0 w z N <( 50 a::: 0 I INJECTION LINE PURGE TIME - 35 SEC TIME OF SWITCHOVER - 1225 SEC T-102 LEVEL AT SWITCHOVER - 1.34 FT ABOVE BOTTOM WELD 0 500 . 1000 1500 2000 TIME, SECONDS FIGURE 6 HYDRAZINE CONCENTRATION VS TIME - CASE 1
E a.
- a. 100 z0
~
er::: w z u z 0 u w z N
<er:::
50
- c I
INJECTION LINE PURGE TIME - 38 SEC TIME OF SWITCHOVER - 2450 SEC e. T-102 LEVEL AT SWITCHOVER - 1.59 FT 500 .* 1000 1500 2000 TIME, SECONDS FIGURE 7; HYDRAZINE CONCENTRATION VS TIME - CASE 2
E a.. z 0 a.. 100 e ~ a::: zw u z 8 w z N <( 50 a::: c J: INJECTION LINE PURGE Tl~E - 29 SEC TIME OF SWITCHOVER - 1225 SEC e. T-102 LEVEL AT SWITCHOVER - 3.58 FT o---~~~~~~~--'-~~~~~~~~-'-~~~~~~~~ ..... ~~~~~~~--' 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME. SECONDS FIGURE 8 *HYDRAZINE CONCENTRATION VS TIME - CASE 3
150 1-- E CL CL z- *100 0 ~ ..... ~ I-zw ..... . u z ._ 0 u w ..... z N ~
-<{ 50 v
c I INJECTION LINE PURGE TIME - 32 SEC 1-- TIME OF SWITCHOVER . - 2450 SEC T-102 LEVEL AT SWITCHOVER - 3. 79 FT I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, SECONDS FIGURE 9 HYDRAZINE CONCENTRATION VS TIME - CASE 4
\)
~*
~.
E Q. Q. z 0 <~ zw u z 8 w z N ~ 501-+-~~~~~~'--~+-~~~~~~~~+-~~~~~~~~+-~~~~~~~~1 0:: Q I INJECTION LINE PURGE TIME - 25 SEC TIME OF SWITCHOVER - 1225 SEC T-102 LEVEL AT SWITCHOVER - 0.37 FT
,0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, SECONDS FIGURE 10 HYDRAZINE CONCENTRATION VS TIME - CASE 5
150 E Q. Q.
. 100 z
0 ~ e:::: I- .._ z w u ..... z 0 ~ u w z N <{ 50 t--- e:::: '- 0 I .... 65 SEC INJECTION LINE PURGE TIME -
'- TIME OF SWITCHOVER - 2450 SEC I-T-102 LEVEL AT SWITCHOVER - 3.30 FT I
0 500 . 1000 1500 2000 TIME , SECONDS FIGURE 11 HYDRAZINE CONCENTRATION VS TIME - CASE 6 .
150 r"-7
*~
E - a. a.
. 100 z
0 I- - ~ I-zw - u z - - 0 u w z 50 I N
'I 4:
a:: Q I INJECTION LINE PURGE TIME - TIME OF SWITCHOVER 39 SEC
- 2450 SEC T-102 LEVEL AT SWITCHOVER - 5.28 FT I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, SECONDS FIGURE 12 HYDRAZINE CONCENTRATION VS TIME - CASE 7
**}}