ML19269C829

Summary of NRC 780629 Meeting W/Ge Re Progress on Steam Effects on BWR Core Spray Distribution.Addl Info Requested by Nrc,Attendance List & Presentation Slides Encl

ML19269C829
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/24/1978
From:	Woods R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Check R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
REF-GTECI-A-16, REF-GTECI-SY, TASK-A-16, TASK-OR NUDOCS 7902140047
Download: ML19269C829 (67)

Text

. ~.

P

/pn*Ecen#'g UNITE D STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMisslON

^

VY ASHING TON. D. C. 20555 c

t

- a e

a*

JUL 2 41978

_ 1 MEMORANDUM FOR: Paul S. Check, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch, DOR FROM:

Roy Woods, Reactor Safety Branch, D0R THRU:

Carl Berlinger, Section Leader, Reactor Safety Branch, DOR (_

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, STATUS REPORT REGARDING STEAM EFFECTS ON BWR CORE SPRAY DISTRIBUTION, (GENERIC TASK A-16)

Representatives of the NRC Staff and the General Electric Company met on June 29,1978 in San Jose, California to discuss GEs progress in the subject A summary of the meeting, an attendance list, a statement of additional area.

information requested by the NRC staff at the meeting, and copies of the presentation slides are attached.

U Roy Woods Reactor Safety Branch Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

(See Attached List) 7902140047

~

t}

4 MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION

• E.

Case J. McGough

• V.

Stello V. Benaroya

• D. Eisenhut G. Lainas B. Grimes T. Ippolito L. Shao G. Knighton R. Baer B. Youngblood A. Schwencer W. Regan D. Zienann D. Bunch G. Lear J. Collins R. Reid W. Kreger D. Davis R. Ballard R. Boyd M. Spangier H. Denton J. Stepp R. Mattson L. Hulman D. Skovholt OELD R. Denise OI&E R. DeYoung

• R. Fraley, ACR$ (16)

D. Ross T. B. Abernathy, DTIE R. Tedesco J. Miller V. Moore H. Thornburg, IE R. Vollmer K. Seyfrit, IE M. Ernst

• Docket Files / Central Files W. Gamill

• NRR Reading P. Collins

• RSB Reading C. Hel temes PDR R. Ho u s to n L. Gifford-GE Bethesda T. Speis J. Alai-GE San Jose R. Clark R. Woods J. Stolz S. Sandoz-GE-San Jose K. Kniel W. Hodges

0. Parr R. Fra hm W. Butler G. Sherwood-GE-Sa n Jose D. Vassallo A. Levine-GE J. Knight

• C. Berlinger S. Pawlicki

• M. Aycoc k I. Sihweil

• All SWR licer.,ees and applicants P. Check

• 0R-PM's T. Novak

• 0R-BC's Z. Rosztoczy

• DPR-PM's

• DPR-BC's

• Denotes person to receive a copy of slides

r Meeting Summary Progress Report on Confirmation of Core Sorf y Distribution in a Steam Enviro _nment June 29,1978, San Jose, CA The purpose of the meeting was to accomplish Milestone Number 80 of Generic Task A-16 (Progress Report No.1 from GE on BWR/6 Testing Program).

Construction of the Steam Sector Test Facility (SSTF) at Lynn, Massachusetts (a full scale mockup of a 30 sector of a 218 "I.D. BWR/6 upper plenum) is currently on schedule. Tests planned at the SSTF were discussed as summarized in the attached slides.

The NRC staff questioned how the SSTF can represent high steam flow velocities, since SSTF core spray distribution tests will introduce only the amount of steam necessary to replace steam condensed by spray flow and thereby maintain system pressure. GE responded that following a LOCA it is not physically possible to have high steam flows in excess of that necessary to maintain system pressure without causing counter-current-flow-limiting (CCFL) phenomena to exist. CCFL phenomena will tend to redistribute spray flow, since bundles receiving a higher spray flow would have a greater surplus spray flow above that which can enter the bundle against the steam upflow. This surplus would build up on top of the core and would redistribute toward bundles with less excess spray flow. Such behavior would improve spray distribution, i.e. would tend to provide more spray flow to low spray flow positions. Therefore the SSTF spray flow distribution tests, at steam flows below the CCFL threshold, will represent the limiting or worst case with the least uniform spray flow distribution.

GE states that it is unlikely that any bundle could maintain steam upflow significantly higher than the average bundles's steam upflow for any sub-stantial period of time (it is difficult to postulate the source of such steam and the driving force that would maintain the non-uniform upflow).

How-ever, if significant differences do exist between bundle steam upflows, GE states that higher local steam upflows will provide a cooling effect equal to or greater than the cooling effect which would have been provided by the spray flow that is prevented from entering the channel by the higher steam fl ow. This was discussed at an earlier (12/15/77) meeting, and the appropriate slides from that meeting are attached (see SCR-9 through SCR-20,12/15/77).

The Horizontal Spray Flow (HSr) test facility and test results from that facility using nozzle types from the BWR/6 design were also discussed. Tests have been run in that facility in a steam environment using single nozzles with various steam pressures (and other parameters) as specified in the attached slides. Steam supply capabilities in the HSF preclude testing more than one high flow nozzle simultaneously.

r g Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC) full scale, 360 spray tests in air were discussed. Those tests have included BWR/6 251" and 218" tests with both the upper and the lower spargers. Representative results are presented in the attached slides. Also included is a slide showing effects due to covering the VNC facility with a " shroud" representing the steam dome present in an actual BWR/6. The results show that the " shroud" causes no significant increase in spray redistribution due to " pumping." That is, air flow patterns caused by air entrained or " dragged along with" the spray flow are not sig-nificantly enhanced by the " shroud" and do not significantly effect spray flow patterns. This lack of " pumping" flow redistribution is particularly notable in the region with minimum bundle spray flows.

The NRC Staff noted that GE has made a firm comnittment to investigate steam effects on core spray distribution only for the BWR/6 design. However, we once again discussed the fact that our overall plan for resolution of this generic item (Task Action Plan A-16) calls for a meeting in February of 1979 between GE, the NRC Staff, and BWR-owning utilities to discuss how these methods will be applied to other BWR designs. We further noted two phenomena which may be present in previous BWR designs which are not present in the BWR/6. These phenomena will have to be considered when deciding how or if BWR/6 test results can be extended to other designs. These two phenomena are not included for investigation in GE's current plans:

1.

Nozzles on the BWR/6 upper sparger are more than a foot away from nozzles on the lower sparger, since all nozzles are mounted on top of their re-spective spargers. However, certain older plants have nozzles less than 6" apart (nozzles are mounted below the top sparger and above the bottom sparger). Nozzle-Nozzle interactions for those cases may be outside the range of the BWR/6 test data, and may occur within the steam condensation region of such nozzle's spray patterns.

2.

SWR /6 nozzles are designed to provide radially and azimuthally uniform spray patterns. However, previous design plants may have nozzles which produce a hollow cone spray pattern (radial asymmetry) and/or they may not produce an azimuthally symmetrical spray pattern. These spray patterns may be outside the range of the BWR/6 test data.

Following the technical presentation summarized above and in the attached slides, the NRC Staff representatives witnessed a demonstration of the full scale, 360 in-air, spray distribution facility at Vallecitos.

Upper and lower sparger demonstrations were seperately run at full flow, and an upper plus lower sparger demonstration (flow from both spargers simultaneously) was at flows as high as the equipment would allow.

In all demonstrations, the run

'punping" phenomenon 'iescribed above was readily observable. That is, air

" dragged" radially inward by the spray flow was forced upward at the core center, carrying small droplets and mist along (the small droplets and mist were created by droplet collision and subsequent breakup from diametrically opposing flows near the core center). However, the amount of water involved in this " pumping" flow appeared to be a negligably small portion of the total fl ow.

Additonal Information Re_ quested from GE at the_J_une 29 Meeting by'NRC Staff Representatives 1.

Provide a schedule for answering the 15 remaining questions attached to our February 3,1978 letter to G. Sherwood, GE, from D. Ross and D. Eisenhut, NRC.

(Questions 3, 4 and 8 have hean answered by a March 1, 1978 letter to D. Eisenhut, NRC, from A. Levine, GE).

2.

Provide your preliminary test results comparing minimum channel flow from upper sparger only, lower sparger only, and both upper and lower spargers simultoneously operating for the various size BWR/6 plants tested to date in the Vallecitos facility. Indicate minimum cha.nnel flows and locations in all cases.

3.

Provide a slide or slides showing additional details of how the various analytical and experimental investigations will be combined to yield the final " full core representation" of core spray distribution. The content and detail of the infonnation 'rovided should be comparable to the presentation given on this subject by Dr. Sandoz at the blackboard during this meeting.

Attendance List, June 29, 1978 Core Spray Distribution Meeting A. J. Levine GE Safety & Licensing R. Woods NRC/00R R. Fra hm NRC/ DSS W. Hodges NRC/ DSS J. A. Alai BWRSED W. A. Sutherland NTO E. D. Fuller GE BWR Licensing T. W. Craig BWRSED J. D. Duncan BURSED S. A. Sandoz BWR NTD Y. Eljas BWR NTD S. K. R ho w BWR NTD C. H. Robbins flTD

n e, L,)

51.de,

CORE SPRAY DISTRIBUTION PROGRESS REPORT 29 JUNE 1978 AGEtlDA SUBJECT SPEA%ER INTRODUCTI0ll A. J.l.EVIflE/S. A. SAND 0Z C0t!STRUCT10N PROGRESS AT LYfli!

C. H. ROBBIllS STEAM SECTOR TEST PROGRAM S. K. RH0F BREAK ll0RIZ0flTAL SPRAY FACILITY TESTS Y. El.JAS VALLECITOS FACILITY TESTS AND S. A. SAI'lDOZ MODIFICAil0ilS SUriMARY AI!D C0f1CLUSIONS A. J. LEVINE LUI!CH OBSERVAT!Dil 0F DEM0i:STRATION S. A. SAflD0Z/J. A. ALAI AT VALLECIl0S FACILITY AJI./G/27/7P

CORE SPRAY DISTRIBUTI0t!

STATUS REPORT IflTRODUCTIOF1 PURPOSE INFORMATI0M UPDATE PER NRC TASK ACTION PLAtt A-16 (DRAFT)

SECTION 8G PROGRESS SIf!CE JAtlUARY 1978 LYNN FACILITY STEAM SECTOR TEST PROGRAM HORIZONTAL SPRAY FACILITY A'ID TESTS VALLECITOS FACILITY AtlD TESTS AJL/i:n /1 6/27/78

SUMMARY

AflD CONCLUSI0iiS C0IlSTRUCT10N ON SCHEDULE TEST PROGRAM Of1 SCHEDULE TO DATE THE RESULTS FROM THE PROGRAM SHON NO NEFD TO DEVIATE FROM THE OVERALl.

PLAf1 WHICH WAS PRESEllTED IN JANUARY 1978 AJL/Kc/2 6/27/78

DESIGt! PATH SINGLE N0ZZLE TESTS v

HORIZ0iiTAL SNAP s'

DISTRIBUTIONS V

GEOMETRIC GENUS VARIATIONS V

FULL CORE DISTRIBUTIONS V

FULL CORE INTERACT 10il/

AIR TEST EthEh tNK ti R

V FliiAL CALCULATED DISTRIBUTION

~

SSTF CONFIRMATION /

SAS 6/29/78

BWR/6 CORE SPRAY PROGRAM C.H. ROBBINS LYNN TEST FACILITY STATUS S.K. RHOW STEAM SECTOR TEST FACILITY PROGRAM Y. ELJAS HORIZONTAL SPRAY FACILITY RESULTS VALLECITOS TESTS l

VALLECITOS FACILITY UPGRADE 1 SAS 6/29/78

PROGRESS REPORT ON ECCS STEAM SECTOR TEST FACILITY (LYNN)

C.H. ROBBINS AGENDA REVIEW FACILITY DESCRIPTION e

KEY SCHEDULE DATES e

STATUS OF MAJOR ITEMS e

PHOTOGRAPHS (EARLY MAY) e CHR-1, 6/29/78.

9 9

0 Q

a a

g-y Q"

-O E

~

e J ~

- $ _ _= 9 -

4>

t x

w W

t r

u.

s 48-I

~~

\\

f l

LJ g q

r s 4

l N3

\\y2 Y

y g ls

)

i;

^

9 s-s e

w2 Eu<

[

(q

-i J

W_

r m

o a

u G

g m

.n m

e

<o ab u

,,a &@

v

~

Q, 2

A

\\\\ i j't g

y i

k>

\\\\\\l%s ofo n

3 O%

he d>Sy g

+%

F5 y

as is 6 a@-g-y>

f,l'

>g NW

_g

~.

es oo

,E o

F 3

a a

CO-@9 f'2 a

u

\\

p wd

\\

2

\\

a 1

]*

O e40 s

3 W8 3

d 3139 3: ~T %W V

s'2 u

O O

g

-a

=

O STE AM '

^

SEPAEATORS Q

- UPPEE PLEMUM

\\

fko i

' tS i

I I

I uppEE IlE FLATES l

1 I

U 1

g

)

/

-J I

sTau i

LPC1 -

i ~ FUEL buMDLES l

I If I

m o

u v/

hgg g [

-FUEL suPVOET CASTIMG l

O g

l I

L i

/

I i

_I_yGulDE TUBE i _ _ _/

VOLU M E I

I i

/

FULL SCALE 4

ytowm vLEMuu i

3go gtt7op i

votuus TEST 3E rT\\O R.

/

\\

YsJ Y

ECCS STEAM SECTOR TEST FACILITY PROJECT SCHEDULE APPROVAL BY G.E. BOARD OF DIRECTORS - AUG 1977 e

START OF CONSTRUCTION - OCT 1977 e

FACILITY SHAKEDOWN - OCT 1978 e

(ON SCHEDULE)

CHR-4, 6/29/78

ECCS STEAM SECTOR TEST FACILITY (LYNfD STATUS OF MAJOR ITEMS ON JUNE 29, 1978 ENGINEERING - 85% COMPLETE SITE CONSTRUCTION - 50% COMPLETE FOUNDATIONS IN CONTROL ROOM BUILT PUMPS, PIPING UP TO VESSEL, TANK INSTALLED STRUCTURE AROUND VESSEL INSTALLED MAIN PRESSURE VESSEL - 95% COMPLETE SHIP MID-JULY VESSEL INTERNALS - 35% COMPLETE EXPECT 70% COMPLETE BY AUGUST 1 DATA ACQUISITION ALL HARDWARE RECEIVED SOFTWARE - 95% COMPLETE INSTRUMENTATION ON ORDER OR RECEIVED - 85% COMPLETE CHR-5, 6/29/78

CORE SPRAY PROGRAM AT 30" SECTOR STEAM TEST FACILITY (SSTF)

AGENDA 1.

TEST OBJECTIVE 2.

TEST APPARATUS 3.

TEST PLAN 4.

DATA ANALYSIS PLAN 5.

CONCLUDING REMARKS SKR 6/29/78

TEST OBJECTIVE TO CONFIRM METHOD OF CALCULATING CORE SPRAY DISTRIBUTION SKR 6/29/78

TEST APPARATUS e

TEST SECTION e

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FACILITY CAPABILITY e

SKR 6/29/78

SIDE VIEW 0F TEST SECTION STEAM SEPARATOR STEAM DOME MOCKUP

\\

t' r

- UPPER PLENUM I

./

MOCKUP

/'

fl

',' LI i

i b

l g

HPCS x

,y*

~

!N LPCS N

N a:.--....

t, s

i,

.s c

i

.~.

fL7

(<,

f

.J f.'.

xI l

~-

f ig.

r i q.- 1

'si

,/

FUEL BUNDLE EXTENDED ARRAY MOCKUP SKR 6/29/78

TOP VIEW 0F TEST SECTION r

SECTOR WALL

,/

f

/

/p'

/

k

• /

n

/

y.A f

s_H' l.?

24g

-- m -

\\

4-N-y, k

k lhl, ?Q.y)f BUNDLES ARE N'

4-

" \\,

.' of

'; b NOT SHOWN ON

,M k['#

THIS SIDE.

m+

SECTOR WALLS IN PLACE g *

(o -

o t.

tN, -

d- %:;S s

M

., e, EXTENDED ARRAY

-HE T:

g _

L-g-

- e u -

t c.

=

v e

m i >pg d

t d

a.-).

x SKR EXTENDED ARRAY WITH SECTOR WALLS REMOVED 6/29/78

FUEL ButiDLE MOCKUP

'., u 3

n n

- s

! :(_._N[s Q

dj.

j (7's.1 L'l MJ UE h'

51a L 1.

I R

1, MT{ y-STEAM Ifi)ECTOR i

p /

I t

i

,('..

s, i

j j

%s-j l

c,.,.,.

k WATER LEVEL

+r i

e

-~

(.n/ /rrrn c~ms WEIR TUEE

{r g.

7

'..i v,

.i i.J

![

l, l: ' %

i.

I.

,6 8

't

/i/I p,

{ t\\\\

t e

ru_

(s 3

_t-

- ~ i -:.;- '

P-DUCER

-L-b SKR 6/29/78

TEST APPARATUS TEST SECTION 30' FULL SIZE MOCKUP 0F BWR/6-218 e

e ACTUAL HARDWARE e

CORE SPRAY N0ZZLES CORE SPRAY HEADER PIPE e

UPPER TIEPLATE, TOP FUEL GUIDE, ETC.

e STEAM INJECTION IN FUEL BUNDLES AND e

INTO STEAM DOME.

EXTENDED ARRAY OUTSIDE 30 SECTOR e

SKR 6/29/78

TEST APPARATUS MEASUREMENT SYSTEM MEASUREMENT OF SYSTEM CONDITIONS e

TEMPERATURE OF SPRAY WATER IN SPARGER e

STEAM PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE e

e STEAM FLOW CORE SPRAY HEADER PRESSURE, ETC.

e MEASUREMENT OF CORE SPRAY COLLECTOR FLOW e

e WEIR TUBE SKR 6/29/78

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM WEIR TUBE FLOWRATE MEASUREMEt1T e

l s

)

FLOWRATE PER HOLE N

= C /2gh A

i AP )_

)h Y

e ADVANTAGES OF WEIR TUBE e

WIDE FLOW RANGE MINIPUM INTERFERENCE WITH VAPOR FLOW e

e DEVELOPMENT CALIBRATION WITH ACTUAL DESIGN e

SKR 6/29/78

WEIR TURE FLOWRATE MEASUREMENT t'p 7!,l' ' [ t.' p y 50.

WATER TEMPERATURE:

70*F

20. -

ENVIRONMENT:

AIR o@ O 0

O W

O x

E$

O 10.

~

O O

t$

w E

g

{

5.

e c

O O

O O

2.

O O

i i

0.2 0.5 1.0 2.

5.

10.

20.

50.

FLOWRATE, GPM SKR 6/29/78

TEST APPARATUS FACILITY CAPABILITY e

STEAM PRESSURE f150 PSIA e

STEAM FLOW f90,000LB/HR f 533 GPM e

HPCS FLOW f 533 GPM e

LPCS FLOW e

SPRAY WATER TEMPERATURE 90 -175'F e

BOUNDS EXPECTED CORE SPRAY CONDITIONS SKR 6/29/78

TEST PLAN e

TIEBACK TEST TESTS WITH AND WITHOUT SECTOR WALLS e

e STEAM FLOW SOURCE EFFECT CONFIRMATION OF MULTIPLE N0ZZLE e

INTERACTION EFFECT IN STEAM e

SKR 6/29/78

TEST PLAti SUPPORTING TEST IN AIR AT Vtic e

FULL SPARGER (360*) TEST e

30* SECTOR TEST FOR TIEBACK TO SSTF e

SKR 6/29/78

f DATA ANALYSIS PLAN PRE-TEST ANALYSIS s/

v SUCCESS PRE-TEST CRITERIA PREDICTION

\\/

\\/

POST-TEST TEST ANALYSIS DATA

\\/

FINAL CONCLUSION SKR 6/29/78

CONCLUDIf1G REMARKS CORE SPRAY METHODOLOGY WILL e

BE C0t1 FIRMED IN SSTF TESTS.

SKR 6/29/78

CORE SPRAY PROGRAM HSF FACILITY AND MODIFICATIONS e

e HSF TEST RESULTS Y.E.

6/29/78

8 z

U.0 O

s X

>- w W

mO

%)

W p< WE W

u J

w d

BW

$g 2

w

~)

g u"

t

@g A<

i o I

h w

w rs

@)-

e-f e-k

$gd"_

B d

O--

q "$

yw 5

g =,

g:=

ge 3g R=

g.

23 gP D-f w$

o 1

2 h's r

gd F

\\i/

d@es M

9 e

ER$

og" l

ll h /

0P g-

-eg 9

e

)

2 pc dd j

e bf$s 7

d FY b

ad e

65

>W og gg 9

Br 9, q,5

j h;(\\ \\

\\

i

@8 hap'"

gd e"

~

i 6

55 Bd 28 b

\\

h k$s$

~'

7 _x._/gx(

y tc 1

4

=a Q

~

Q-C

\\\\

~

,p E2 i

o

,('

m 2

c,',

k

..t i

_g

.U )

-ga 4

y

.o

<pjs c

s t$i 6 dp.

s M

2 b

= <. -

3 2

_. : l h 2

o s

u ga cap p5 P

h y

{y (T' '

3 ps-g

-2s-

COLL ECTOF_

LOC ATIOk PLAfs f

I

//

__ 4 _

-9 go

<v i,

-COLLECTION c

20 #3 10 19 TA:s K N Uti l'1 v.

n

.o I? 15 it is

?

?

9 Ic 7

6 I

i 3

M 3

4

/2 2

5 2

\\

8 A

't c

L L

6 e.

i 4

I Y E.

w v 6/29/78

O H.,

4 n=

W ATER FLOW TOP VIEW INCLINATION ANGLE

\\

j~

/

y h

UPPER HEADER

\\

INCLINATION ANGLE

\\

N

- l+

LOW E R H E ADER.

i TOP TOP OF DF COLLECTION TANK GRID TV PICAL N0Z2LE SET UP FOR. HEF-Y.E.

6/29/78

NO?.2LE D.

/

BR ACE

-HEADER HSF END OF HEADEL Y,E.

6/29/78

HSF FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS e

COLLECTION TANKS e

CONDUCTIVITY PROBES e

ADDITIONAL HEAT EXCHANGER Y.E.

6/29/78

FUEL CHANNEL OPERING FUNNEL WITH FLOW STRAIGHTEN EL VENT

\\

]

3C

-CONDUCTIVITY PROBE AND CELL

/

IM P R.0VE D HlGH FLOW DRAIN AlR OPE R ATED DUMP VALVE

\\

HSF COLLECTION TANK Y.E.

6/29/78

TYPICAL HSF RESULTS TESTS IN STEAM AT 29 PSIA e

e TESTS IN AIR Y.E.

6/29/78

e N0ZZLES TESTED 1" STREET ELBOW SPP.AC0 2935 3/4" OPEN ELBOW 1" STREET W/ NIPPLE e

PARAMETER SPECIFIED VESSEL PRESSURE SPRAY TEMPERATURE N0ZZLE FLOW RATE N0ZZLE ORIFICES N0ZZLF. AIMING e

NUMBER OF BWR/6 TESTS:

220 TO DATE Y.E.

6/29/78

EDGE AREA l/CENTERAREA INTERMEDIATE AREA

. "'~ ~ ;- ~

L

/

l

'N,s.

[

\\

, \\.,

f-

~...,

['

\\

I h

[!.

1 t

r 1

i

/

g

%\\

\\

~% Lw

~

CORE SPRAY SPARGER (BWR/6)

Y.E.

6/29/78

'Or l.i.

a

, )'

30. -

SPRACO 293s IllCLINAT10ft - 20" 25' FLOW 69 GPM o STEAM 29 PSIA, TEST #6 0 AIR, TEST #2 C"

i

20. -

S is 1s. -

p a

s o

/

/

10. -

f N

i

\\

/

5. ~

/

k o

O o

g l

W R j

13 -o-e -

- f1-e- e _g 3

0.

L$-

j 6"

36' 66" 9"

12G" Y

DISTAtlCE FROM THE t'0ZZLE

/78

A EFFECT OF FLOW RATE Oft DISTRIEUTION

~

FROM A SPRAC0 2935 fl0ZZLE Ifl STEAM, 30.-

29 PSIA o

57 GPf4 - 25"

/.-

TEST 7801-68

-/.

,4 1,.

a

\\

/

\\

O 52 GPf4.- 25" TEST 7801-67 p,

/

g 20.- )

I I

~

3 I

\\

f

\\

E E

]

\\

E k

5

\\

d

\\

\\

10.-

N k

N

/

tq l

N

/

h 's

_._ j

..g._.-____-.

t

--L----..

)

6" 36" 66" Y.E.

DISTANCE FR0f4 N0ZZLE FACE 6/29/78

09nlr, t

10. A 1" OE

!NCLINATION 11*, 75 GPM o STEAM 29 PSIA, TEST #90 2

9.

O O

O AIR, TEST #8f1 g

- ~ ~.

E e'

s

/

3 N

6. ~

/

O x

fO O

N

\\

=

\\

/

h

/

O E

\\

d fl. -

I

/

\\

h

\\

/

2-n i

\\R

/

'O c

3 0.

6" 36" 66" 96" 126" DISTANCE FROM N0ZZLE FACE Y.E.

6/29/78

f(j;,*

O i..,.,

1" STREET ELPOW, REPEATABILITY

' '/: ',,

30 -

STEAM, 29 PSIA, -4, 66 GPM O TEST #14 0 TEST #101 o

20 -

t^

E 8

0 10 0

0 0

D

+

I 36' 66" 96" Y.E.

DISTANCE FROM !!0ZZLE FACE 6/29/78

, ~.

=A

.~

70. o-il

.75 OE j

60. ~

IflCLif1AT10ft:

-50*

FLOW:

60 GPM I

k d

STEAM 2 ATM. TEST #79 50.-

O AIR, TEST #611 8

\\

'k th

\\

ll0.. -

\\

ic i

M

\\

30.-

a b

d

[b

\\

20.-

}

^\\

i 10.-

g

\\

C>

0.

'E i

- -- - T 6"

36" 66" 96" 126" DISTAflCE FR0t4 fl0ZZLE FACE Y.E.

6/29/78

CONCLUDING REMARKS e

FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS HAVE ENHANCED SYSTEM CAPABILITY e

TESTED N0ZZLES SHOW CONSISTENT BEHAVIOR Y.E.

6/29/78

VALLECITOS AIR TESTS e

BWR/6-251" FULL CORE BWR/6-218" FULL CORE (IN PROCESS) e e

BWR/6-218" 30' SECTOR (FALL 1976)

(SSTF TIEBACK)

SAS 6/29/78

BWR/6-251" TEST RESULTS MULTIPLE-N0ZZLE INTERACTION e

EFFECT SMALL FOR BWR/6 SHROUD HEAD HAS LITTLE e

EFFECT Of1 DISTRIBUTION e

DOUBLE HEADER TESTS C0tlFIRMED PREVIOUS RESULTS SAS 6/29/78

Q Q "b' ; l vl j hl 1 Fj /

i a l' t \\ls I cc t i\\

N Ncn CA CN

<C N Cn tD o

\\<

%s.

g

.~

7

\\

4

-o

/

o N N d

r b

8 1

o" i

c2 8

8c E

Ga YW

-f/

WS om.-

J i

en z

• s' 38 s

e&g u

d g

/

=r u

N t~

f 8

m c

E

/

/

om

/e4 N.

d s'

e-o

/

s'

.f 5

5 5

m (Wd9) 37CNne 83d Mold

9 e

I i s -_, a.1, I'd !!( f m

N N

O CoCN

<N C4 W CO

~

/

g N

,s" O

cn O

/

(o

<s 4

<J O~

O "g

i O

i c) cr O

w O

OS O

e 4

g lh CZ mm I

C.

)

W M c> = z t

I W

O tn O

• (

aS 9*

1 "e

1 E

o=

=

0) 4 LL.

l O

/

O s'

/

W k

g

~%

m w

4 D Q o a cr=

/

s

.A<

~

Q D

5 s'

-=

.O=

/

/

/

/

/

/

a O

e R

(WdOF 370Nn8 63d M013

On C 5I <

2 T1 o

'~,ri

~

8 7

/9 S2 A/

S6 0

0 1

a

\\a

[a 0

9 l

/

/

k

,,'e 7

\\

0 6

/

a N

0 l

i 0

L 0

U 7

C LO C

NO I

T I

0 S

0 OPR E

)

P S U E S H

. C D N N 0

O I

h 5

(

T s

S S

~ 'A U E I

T DO R NV R

I G

0 E

4 RO C

L

,~

L E A U

\\

R T F

O A F

C D 0

O 3

^

N L T O

L S S

U E I

P F T OP M

\\

\\

0 O

2 C

4

\\^h E D L E Z

\\

S Z A A

O O T 0

1 A

I f

4 M

D x

E I

R L E G T P

S 1

f E

U

/

i S S T 0

0 0

s 0

s 1

i 2

Ea-a 5a !

BWR/6-218" TEST PROGRAM OBJECTIVES MULTIPLE N0ZZLE INTERACTION FACTOR SECTOR vs. FULLCORE INTERACTION EFFECT LOCAL EFFECTS SSTF TIEBACK TESTS PLANNED N0ZZLE ORIFICING AND FLOW SINGLE HEADERS - AS BUILT SINGLE HEADERS - SIMU U. TORS SECTOR TIEBACK FOR SSTF SAS 6/29/78

VALLECITOS FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FLOW MEASURED IN EVERY BUNDLE e

WEIR-TUBE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM e

INCREASED DATA COLLECTION SPEED e

e ON-SITE DATA PROCESSING e

PARTIAL HEADER TESTS SAS 6/29/78

VALLECITOS IMPROVEMENT STATUS e

EQUIPMENT ON ORDER WEIR TUBE UNDER TEST e

DATA REDUCTION PROGRAM IN PROCESS e

SAS 6/29/78

1 O

INDEF90BE OF CCFL APFBOIX K CORE SPPAY EAT TPNGER CEDIT IS STILL APPRPRIATE SCR

-9 12n5M

BWR FE01T TEST PAR #ETERS BICTRICAU_Y EATED FULL-lBETH TEST BLICES e

FOUR STAltLESS STEEL QAD #0 FIVE ZIRCALOY CLAD EAB BLR0ES e

APPf0XIf%TELY 150 TPANSIBE AND STEAIh'-STATE TESTS e

TEST POWER DECAYED TO SIPULATE FOST LOCA DECAY EAT e

TEST CCNDITImS QMED WIDE R#EE OF e

SPRAY Flal RATES BLf0 E POWER TEMPERATURE WEN SPRAY STARTS ESULTS CORElAE TO GIVE ARBOIX K CORE SPPAY WAT TP#6FER e

COEFFICIENTS SCR

-10 12(LVi1

e aa f

i u

E r-m-

\\g W

E j [x,

~

lL

}

2 e

3 4

h h

d2 E %

M E g Ile 3

-7 i

IIf l

,n <

g T

',it i

I s

hl g.i 3

t dst

EXPERIMENTAL TEST DATA SUPPORTING APPENDIX K HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS W

4' (AVAILABLE CORE PPAY) 1 g I,i [, r s,

f%

W 2.a;,7y

5. %.,

l l

e BWR FLECHT TESTS e GENERAL ELECTRIC CORE SPRAY HEAT TRANSFER TESTS l

- 7x7 FUEL GE0 METRY

- 8x8 FUEL GE0 METRY l

I e CCFL AT UPPER TIE PLATE FROM STEAM GENERATED IN TEST BUNDLE i

e APPENDIX K HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS INCLUDE CCFL EFFECTS i

l SCR

-12 12/1577 t

CORE SPRAY HEAT TRANSFER TESTS WITH AND WITHOUT BOTTOM VENTING W ' (AVAILABl.E CORE PPAD $g g

se e1 s

I' WT o

O M.

4.eo-varm

/.

• /

a

/

v,

4, t3 a.

I.

100 BOTTOM VENTING, %

0 i

e BOTTOM VENTING IMPROVES SPRAY HEAT TRANSFER a TESTS WITI0UT VENTING INQ_l0E CEL 7c7m AT UPPER TIE PLATE SCR

-13 12/$ m

n CORE SPRAY HEAT TRANSFER TESTS SIMULATING LOWER PLENUM FLASHING STEAM 4' (AVAILABLE CORE SPRAY) %

l I II n II 4a N

LU 3.LNER PLENUM h

TE*

E E

~

MAX INITIAL&1 E

=*

i s

[CCFLSHUT0FF POINT l

E 5

O INJECTED STEAM e CCFL AT UPPER TIE PLATE BASED ON STEAM GENERATED IN TEST BUNDLE PLUS LOWER PLENUM STEAM s LOWER PLENUM FLASHING STEAM HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON PCT SCR-14 12/15/77

COREC00L e PHYSICALLY BASED CORE HEATUP MODEL

- APPLICABLE AFTER BLOWDOWN PERIOD

- BEST ESTIMATE MODEL

- SENSITIVITY STUDIES e COREC00L DEVELOPMENT

- COMPARED AGAINST 20 FULL SIZE ELECTRICALLY HEATED BUNDLE TESTS

- PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED PEAK CLAD TEMPERATURES SHOW GOOD AGREEMENT SCR

-15

.12/1577

SPRAY FLO'l=0.1878 Kg/sj 688,;

e POWER =250KW 1tilTI At. TEttPERA1CRE-649 *C,7pg j SPRAY TEtIPERATURE-38 C, /0 0

• 8.

U -W g O floo e

e e

e

• OMO 10m I

CORECOOL O

O mu O

L O

t1 800 -

9 O

600 (W

100 1g TIME (acc)

PEAK CIIADDINC TEMPERATURE FOR A BWR FUEt, ELEMENT s

cn

-.9 a

p a

E'[

t.

'O!

l S w w!

Is e

s.c gn

=

ga8 g2 R???

i

1. W y

Q n-m 26 1

x 5

ea

5. "% > 2 b

x g#2#

v m

E@c-

" :i g ;:

1 3

a a-t i.

IdOb g

a

~

e-b N

/

=

d A

E R

~

B M

k b

E 8

g g

o v,

m l

9

- o" e

4 O

e 9

e i

1 1

1 i

O s

i g

s e

a Q

{

O r/15M

9 8

y a

$3 e

s M

4 n*

a

+

.-) -

y of

- 4 Y

7-

• g 11 r-r i t IE' E

=

e si

_:=,

^

! lit ! g 3e a e n o e

Wu 5

1 t=

~

n' a $

5 g a

o f

5e51 $

=

E3 -

-y

-e gas w

E 1'

s e.

-w J

f

',+-i 3,

5 n

3 E

Sp E

E I

r o

n t

I l

.s CORE SPRAY HEAT TRANSFER CONCLUSIONS e BOTTOM VENTING IMPROVES SPRAY HEAT TRANSFER

- JET PUMP DISCHARGE UNCOVERED

- BWR-1/2 - RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK e APPENDIX X HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS INCLUD e LOWER PLENUM FLASHING STEAM HAS LITTLE EFFECT e STEAM COOLING REDUCES PCT DURING CCFL SHUT 0FF SCR

-19 12/iVi7

s

.... s -

SUMMARY

e APPENDIX K LOCA METHODS ARE CONSERVATIVE

- PRESENT CORE SPRAY HEAT TRANSFER CREDIT INCLUDES CCFL EFFECTS

- REFLOOD TIME IS CONSERVATIVELY CALCULATED i

SCR

-20 12/1577

s

-A : reactor nozzle x

in steam i

\\

5

\\

c f

2

/

\\

4 B: si ulator nozzle w N

w in air distance from nozzle FIGURE 1 Full core air test

' ~'

with simulators M

/

\\

g.___ h '

{

' ga-

\\ uperpcsition calcuiations

\\

C S

with simulators g

u core radius FIGURE 2 x

a Interaction factor s

N V

2 t

FIGURE 3

~

i s

\\

p Final calculated distribution for reactor cc e s;raj

{

\\

=

x z

Suterpositico calculation with g

3 reactc-no::les in steam

\\

a

\\

\\

core radius F: T:rE :

STEPS USED IN CORE SPRAY DESIGN METHODCLOGY 1.

Single nozzle distribution test is performed at the design condition (spray water flow rate, water temperature, and pressure of the steam atmosphere are specified), for each spray nozzle type used in the design. A certain spray distribution pattern is obtained.

A one-dimensional radial cut through this distribution might look like curve A in Figure 1.

2.

Simulator nozzles are developed.

Sincie nozzle distribution tests are per-formed with the simulators in air, r.atching the distribution obtained with reactor nozzles in steam closely (see curve B in Figure 1).

3.

Full core air tests are performed using the simulator nozzles. A radial distribution is obtained, as shown in Figure 2.

4 Superposition calculations are made using the single nozzle distributions obtained with simulators in step 2.

The resulting radial distribution is shcan in Figure 2.

5.

The " superposition calculation with simulators" distribution is subtracted from the " full core air tests with simulators" distribution to yield the interaction factor curve shown in Figure 3.

6.

Superposition calculations are made using the single nozzle distributions obtained from reactor nozzles in steam in step 1.

The resulting radial distribution is shown in Figure 4.

7.

The interaction factor (step 5) shown in Figure 3 is added to the super-position calculation (step 6) shown in Figure 4 to yield the final calculated steam distribution, also shown in Figure 4.

G E N E R T,' C E L E C T R ' C U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 6, 1978 Page 2 If you need any further information, please contact the undersigned.

Very truly ours, 05w 9

A. J. Levine, Manager Project Licensing Unit I BWR Licensing Safety and Licensing Operation AJ L: gmm/581-582 Attachment cc:

L. S. Gifford, Beth R. Woods, NRC_

__