ML20030A864
| ML20030A864 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107290111 | |
| Download: ML20030A864 (10) | |
Text
_.
6
/> g%
DISTRIBUTION Docket File LB#4 Reading DEisenhut EAdensam D.
. M RIMkel' 'rIA f1Duncan SHanauer Docket f405.:
50-369/370 e{co TMurley d;-
RMattson fir. Willia.n
- 0. Parker, Jr.
RHartfield, MPA Vice President - Steam Production OEL O s.
o 'l> g -
21 4
01'. (3)-
- 4. g Duke Power Ccxnpany p
bc, TERA /NSIC/ TIC 3 [,*
~
422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 20242 ACRS-(10) g LPDR,. 3
,g 4-
Dear Mr. Parker:
{NRCPDRai
'N
SUBJECT:
REQUESTS.FOR INF0PJ4ATION ON HYDROGEN CONTROL Enclosed are requests for additional infonnation on..ydrogen control that 'is needed by October 1,1981 in order to :aeet the license condition of January 31, 1982.
The enclosure has been sent to TVA and AEP for responses on their ice condenser plants. We suggest that you coordinate your efforts with the
~
other participants in the research program on hydrogen cocbustion and control to eliainate any duplication of effort.
Sincerely, Orfdad m n,,, g a
W L. Tedesco Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page i
f" 1
8107290111 810721 PDR ADOCK 05000369 p
PDR q
A s
omce)
....l.0..:.f.4.[.0,b.
.. /.
- l B,,,f,4,,,
,,,, A, D,(,,,,,,
sunuce >
.....RB i r.ke l....
...EAdensam.....RIedesco...
....u. 8/.aA.. 7...ul a l.......ul.h/.81......
d om>
unc ronu ais oo-son uncu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usa m mi-m sa
McGuire Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
Vice President - Steam Production Duke Power Company P.O. Box 2178 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 cc: Mr. W. L. Porter Shelley Blum, Esq.
Duke Power Conpany 1402 Vickers Avenue P.O. Box 2178 Durham, North Carolina 27707 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Mr. R. S. Howard Power Systens Division Westinghouse Electric Corp.
P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1530 Mr. E. J. Keith EDS Nuclear Incorporated 220 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94104 Mr. J. E. Houghtaling NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President The Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
DeBevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Ms. M. J. Graham Resident Inspector McGuire NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regualtory Commission P.O. Box 216 Cornelius, North Carolina 28031 l
l i
e
,,me,w
-i-r
-,,.----w--
,-,------yu.,
,-w
,mr y-p,_yy
~-r
-.r-v-s-+-+vge
v
Describe the permanent hydrogen igniter system installed inside contain-1.
In-Provide and justify the criteria used for the system design.
ment.
clude in your discussion the proposed surveillance testing, and technical specifications for the pemanent system.
List the rooms within containment for which there is no direct coverage 2.
by igniters and justify exclusion of tt:ese regions.
Discuss the effects of igniter operation in lean (0-4 v/o) hydrogen mix-3.
tures for sustained durations (24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) on the ability of the igniter to subsequently perform its intended function.
Describe the testing perfomed to evaluate the temperature effects of surface recombination and possible igniter degradation.
4.
Provide a complete discussion of the accident symptoms which will result in actuation of the igniter system.
Considering a spectrum of accidents, iden-tify the minimum time period in which actuation is required.
Identify and justify the mode of actuation, i.e.., automatic or remote manual.
s.
5.
With regard to the Fenwal igniter test program provide the following infor-mation:
a)
Sumary of the data from the Phase 2 Fenwal tests in a format simila'r to that provided for the Phase 1 tests in the TVA Core Degradation Program Report, Vol. 2.
Include the calculated AP/aP max value.
b)
Description and justification of the scaling of the spray flow tests '
to the ice condenser upper or lower compartment sprays.
c)
Description and justification of the f.caling of the steam-hydrogen transient injection tests.
ENCLOSURE a
)
6.
Submit a topical report on the CLASIX code; in this regard:
Describe in detail the version of the CLASIX code used to perform a) the revised analyses, including a discussion of models, methods for soluti.on, assumptions and input parameters.
b)
Describe the efforts and results to verify the revised CLASIX code, i.e.,
i )
Provide comparative analyset to show the effects of model changes from the initial version as described in the TVA Core Degradation Program Report, Vol. 2.
As a minimum comparative calculations should.be provided to isolate and identify the effects of adding heat sinks, upper plenum volume, fan head characteristics.
ii ) Quantify the effects of incorporating the radiation heat transfer model and describe the results of analyses to verify this model in its application to containment heat transfer.
iii )
Provide a discussion of the program to verify the revised CLASIX In-code against other containment codes and experimental data.
clude a discussion of. bath the Fenwal and EPRI hydrogen test data.---
Comparison of CLASIX prediction of hydrogen combustion tests should also describe the code input parameters where user options may affect the comparison.
c)
Dis' cuss the treatment of hydrogen addition to a volume in which combus-tion is calculated to be taking place.
d)
Discuss in detail the treatment of the intermediate deck doors and the effect of the doors functioning as check valves on upper plenum burning and downward flame propagation.
Discuss modeling of vents tround the doors.
w
,-s,
,py g-w
- - - - - - - - - -, +
,-i---e 9
v w-v----
= + - - -, -,
,=-e--i
,--w-y w-w,---e.
-+www--
yw~-,c
~;.
e)
Provide the results of calculations to determine the sensitivity to selection of timestep sizes, f)
Discuss initialization of the CLASIX code with results of LOTIC 1
~'
analysis; i)
Discuss application of LOTIC 1 to small break analysis especially prior to fan operation or for breaks without fan ope ration.
ii) Discuss use of LOTIC 1 for analysis of superheated atmosphere conditions.
g)
Provide the results of analysis to identify the effectiveness of the ice bed in removing heat from a highly superheated steam-air-hydro-gen mixture.
Provide figures showing ice bed heat transfer coefi-ficients, flow rates.
h)
Discuss the potential for preferential flow to the ice bed (maldis-tribution) during various accidents.
What is the probability. and con-sequence of the break release point being adjacent to the lower doors with the hydrogen-steam release jetting into 1 or ?. bays of the ice condenser rather than uniformly mixing in the lower compartment.
Discuss the possible effects of partitioning the ice bed model in the circumferential direction as well as modeling the lower compart-ment as several subvolumes.
l i)
Describe any plans for future modification of the CLASIX code.
0
(
l
...., ~.. _ _..
7.
Provide a discussion of the results of analyses of the S D transient 2
using the revised CLASIX code as discussed above addressing the follow-ing; a)
Idencify and provide the results of a base case reference analysis and discuss the rationale for selection of the base case, e.g., re-presentation of a best estimate or bounding calculation.
Provide justification for the characteri:ation of this analysis. The results should include plots of pressure, temperature and gas concentrations for the various regions of the containment, b)
Provide the results of sensitivity studies to determine the effect of operation of 1 or 2 trains of fans and sprays.
c)
Provide the results of analyses to determine the effect of various hydrogen combustion assumptions considering the following:
i) combustion of lean hydrogen mixtures with partial combustion; ii) complete combustion of hydrogen at various setpoints; -
iii) the use of differenT comb ~ustion assumptions in separate re-gions of the containment; iv) combustion of hydrogen assuming various flame speeds; identify a best estimate and bounding value for flame speeds; and v) simultaneous ignition at multiple igniter sites.
d)
Identify periods in the transient where hydrogen combustion is limited or precluded by the quantity of oxygen available in the compartment.
R
e)
Identify the analysis (es) to be used as the basis for determining the maximum temperature response of essential equipment.
Provide justification for the case (s) selected.
f)
Where pressure effect? are a major consideration in determining the survivability of equipment, such as the air return fans, identify and justify the analysis used as the basis for assuring the equip-ment will function as intended.
g)
Considering the capability of the containment shell, crane wall, and the operating deck perform an analysis to determine the maximum con-centration of hydrogen which could. be tolerated to bura to completion in the upper compartment considering multiple ignition sites and ap-propriate flame speeds.
h)
Since the original S D transient analyses did not mechanistically 9
2 consider termination of the accident it is necessary to identify the effects of core recovery.
Therefore, either demonstrate that various modes of core recovery do not adversely affect the hydrogen and steam _.. _
l l
l release rates and therefor the containment pressure and temperature.
l response or provide the results of analyses which address the more l
likely scenarios involving core recovery.
i)
Provide the fan head curve used in the CLASIX model.
In order to I
demonstrate the effects of variable fan flow provide figures of fan l
1 flow as a function of time.
e
-ee - -- e e c
,-.,-----,-,-r,-
,e-.
r-,----,-w---
,--,e-e--
...--.,--m-e,-
r :
Identify the spectrum of accidents which you have considered in your evalu-8.
ation of the distributed ignition system.
Discuss the rationalc for selec-f Discuss the basis for assumptions regarding tion of the various accidents.
Provide the termination of the accident prior to core slump if applicable.
assumptions and results of CLASIX analyses perfonned to evaluate the contain-ment atmosphere pressure and temperature results, similar to that provided for the S D transient, for the various accident sequences selected.
2 Provide a quantitative evaluation of the probability and effects of form-9.
This evalu-ing a fog, comprised of water droplets, inside containment.
ation should address the following items:
a)
Identification of the range of droplet sizes and requisite volumetric density to preclude.combustica of hydrogen or affect combustion char-acteristics such as flame propagation.
Provide the basis, including experimental evido~ to support these conclusions.
s b)
Consideration of the probability and consequences of fog formation in the various regions of the containment (e.g., lower compartment, ic,e,_ _
condenser).
. Provide a quantitative evaluation of the probability and effects of pro-10.
ducing supersaturated steam conditions in the various containment compart-Discuss the effects these conditions may have on igniter performance.
ments.
Reference any test data used to support your conclusions.
The utility arguments presented to date on the issue of transition to deton-11.
ation in the ice bed appear to be focused about two points:
1)
The upper pl6num ignite'rs will burn H -mixtures as they first become 2
flama,ble, if richer mixtures begin to be fonned the flame front will
7-propagate downward in the ice bed where sufficient steam is condens to support a flame; and 2)
The geometry of the ice condenser upper plenum is not conducive to producing detonations.
Please provide any references to supporting test data derived from a a) configuration which is analogous to the phenomena described in item 1 It appears that the argument presented in item 1 relies upon a b)
Discuss the implications of generally stable horizontal flame.
localized downward flame propagation and consequential crossflow through the ice bed.
Discuss the applicability of the EPRI tests, designed to study tran-c) sition to detonation, to the ice condenser geometry.
udy the effects Discuss the applicability of EPRI tests designed to d) of obstacles to the geometry of an ice ccadenser plant.
Provide the L/D value appl.icablei to the ice condenser region and e) evaluate the acceleration of burns initiated in the lower compartment which propagate through the ice condenser.
Provide analysis to address the consequences of continuous or near conti 12.
Describe the models, -
ous burning in the ice bed or upper plenum region.
assumptions, and results of analysis to evaluate the decompositon o Consider the effects of 2-3 dimensional heat of materials in this region.
Address the likelihood of inadvertently supplying transfer in the process.
oxygen to support combustion of foam behind the wall panel ducts.
4 w
e
-,,e- - - -,,
-,-,-e-,,,,~w----,-,,-,,v-,e
,w-,,,e--,.c---
g
--,,---v w
-,e--
-sv,,-yv-----
-v---,
,---o---~w,n w....g--,-w-,
y-
4 4
8 13.
Describe the testing perfonned to demonstrate that upper plenum igniters will properly function in an environment of prolonged hydrogen burning.
14.
Describe and justify the criteria used to determine adequate coverage of the ice condenser upper plenum region with igniters to insure combustion while minimizing exhaust of unburnt gas to the upper compartment.
Identify the minimum number of igniters needed to accomplish the intended objective.
- s h3 m.
Om 4
e I
i e
y---r
-w.
emp g.ry-g-g----
t-.y.-.,
.g--,--we-pp,-rwgear-+
yw.-ri 999 p4,+egr-.4 ew-Wwtwew-y*+tet- - ' *wyc=---w-
---ygs y-+w'.97*--*-
s c
- p w.e-mit-is-d
-g-*-y-+ry