ML20036A060

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards SSAR Markups Addressing Confirmatory Items 3.6.1-2, 6.2.1.7-1 & Response to Open Item 6.2.1.6-3.Response to Question on Subsection 6.2.1.2.2 Re Design Features Also Encl
ML20036A060
Person / Time
Site: 05200001
Issue date: 04/30/1993
From: Fox J
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To: Poslusny C
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9305070351
Download: ML20036A060 (49)
v • d • e


Text

@

GE Nuclear Energy h,'r ev

~

Ge. U ia-6 1!5 Lv:m e *:

s v TA G5 April 30,1993 Docket No. STN 52-001 Chet Poslusny, Senior Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Subject:

Submittal Supporting Accelerated ABWR Review Schedule - DFSER Chapters 3 and 6 Outstanding Items and Question Response

Dear Chet:

Enclosed are SSAR markups addressing Confirmatory Items 3.6.1-2 and 6.2.1.7-1, and response to Open Item 6.2.1.6-3. In addition, the response to a question on Subsection 6.2.1.2.2 Design Features is enclosed.

It must be noted that the pressure / temperature values in revised Table 31.3-15 (responding to Confirmatory Item 3.6.1-2) do not include adjustments for blowout panel failure consideration.

The applicability of including blowout panel failure considerations in RB/SC compartment pressurization analyses was discussed with the Staff during the April 13 - 15,1993, Plant Systems Branch meeting in San Jose. Current regulations, standard review plan requirements and previous safety evaluations do not suggest on imposing the failure of a passive blowout panel devise for subecmpartment pressurization analyses. In conclusion, the Staff agreed that subcompartment pressurization analyses need not to consider failure of blowout panel.

Please provide copies of this transmittal to Butch Burton and Tony D'Angelo.

Sincerely,

  • Y 0GQp37 Jack Fox Advanced Reactor Programs cc: Norman Fletcher (DOE)

Umesh Saxena (GE)

()

s\\

9305070351 930430 PDR ADOCK 05200001 A

PDR

' lf

  • I Tablo 3I.3-15 Thcrm': dynamic Envircum:nt C2nditicn3 Incido R m tcr Building (Secodary Contaiment)

Plant Accident condition C) Pressure, temperature and relative humidity Plant Zone / Typical E(maipment control rod drive hydraulic Temperature ( C )

120 100 66 66 cyctcm (scram etc. of hydrau-Pressure (Kg/cm^2 g) 1.05 0.035 0.035 0

lic control unit) [ Fig's. 1.2-4/

Humidity ( %)

Steam Steam 100 90 Max 4.6-8)

Time (2) 1(h) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day)

Control rod hydraulic Temperature ( C )

120 66 pump: [ Fig's. 1.2-4/4.6-8)

Pressure (Kg/cm^2 g) 1.05 0

Humidity ( %)

Steam 90 Max Time (2)

I to 6(h) 6h to 100(day)

RCIC valves (except isolation Temperature ( C )

142 66 66 valv s), assemblies, cable Pressure (Kg/cm'2 g) 1.05 0.035 0

turbine [ Fig's. 1.2-4/ 5.4-8)

Humidity ( %)

Steam 100 90 Max Time (2) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day)

RCIC turbine electric control Temperature ( C )

142 66 66 cystem (3),(6)

Pressure (Kg/cm*2 g) 1.05 0.035 0

[ Fig's. 1.2-5/5.4-8)

Humidity ( %)

Steam 100 90 Max Time (2) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day)

RHR (LPFL, cooling system at Temperature ( C )

120 66 66 S/D, containment cooling. Ser-Pressure (Kg/cm^2 g) 1.05 0.035 0

vic3 water system) valve, pump Humidity ( %)

Steam 100 90 Max (motor, seal cooler) instrument Time (2) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day) control electric equipment (in-cluding cable and sources of clectricity) [ Fig's. 1.2-4/5.4-10]

HPCF pump, motor (seal cooler)

Temperature ( C) 120 66 66 in:trument, control electric Pressure (Kg/cm"2 g) 1.05 0.035 0

cquipment (including cable and Humidity ( %)

Steam 100 90 Max cources of electricity Time (2) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day)

[ Fig's. 1.2-4/6.3-7)

N:utron monitor system (6),

Temperature ( C )

120 66 66 (ccble of IRM, preamplifier Pressure (Kg/cm*2 g) 1.05 0.035 0

drivo relay panel, cable of Humidity ( %)

Steam 100 90 Max LPRM) [ Fig's. 1.2-3b/7.6-1)

Time (2) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day)

Leck detection installation Temperature ( C )

120(3) 100 66 66 (ctOrm water)(4),(6) (instru-Pressure (Kg/cm^2 g) 1.05 0.035 0.035 0

ment, sources of electricity)

Humidity ( %)

Steam Steam 100 90 Max in:trument and sources of elec-Time (2) 1(h) 6th) 12(h) 100(day) tricity for surveillance after cecident [ Fig's. 1.2-6/5.2-8)

Tchlo 3I.3-15 i

Thermodynamic Envircament Canditien3 Incido RCOcter Cuilding' (Secodary Contalment)-

~!

Plant Accident condition j

i

'c) Pressure, temperature and relative humidity.

i Plant ' Zone / Typical Equisseent f

l Switchgear and MCC for ECCS Temperature ( C )

120 (3) 66 66 l

system (6) (Fig's. 1.2-6/8.3-1]

Pressure (Kg/cm*2 g) 1.05 0.035 0

1 Humidity ( %)

Steam 100 90 Max l

Time (2) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day)

?

.i

.FPC (cooling system, Temperature ( C )

120 66 66 l

SPCU [make-up)

Pressure (Kg/cm 2 g) 1.05 0.035 0

water system) valve, pump Humidity ( %)

Steam 100 90 Max

~ '

1 motor, heat exchanger, instru-Time (2) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day) e ment, control electric equip-ment)' cable sources of elec-tricity,[ Fig's. 1.2-9/9.1-1)

Isolation valve (1) (Water Temperature ( C ')

171-100(3) 100 66 66 lins (4), air line(4))

Pressure (Kg/cm"2 g) 1.05 0.035 0.035 0

(Fig's. 1.2-4/4.6-8)

Humidity ( %)

Steam Steam 100

-90 Max Time (2) 1(h) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day) j i

Main Steam Tunnel (outside secondary containment)

't

'{

MS isolation valve (1)

Temperature ( C )

171

-100 66 66 MS drain isolation valve Pressure (Kg/cm'2 g) 1.05 0.035 0.035

-0 Nitrogen line isolation valve Humidity ( %)

Steam Steam 100 90 Max j

(1),(4)

Time (2) 1(h) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day) l Process water line isolation valve (1),(4) r (Fig's. 1.2-2, 1.2-3, 1.2-3a, 5.1-3) i Feedwater isolation valve (1)

Temperature ( C )

- 171 100 66 66 l

[ Fig's. 1.2-2, 1.2-3, 1.2-3a/_

Pressure (Kg/cm'2'g) 1.05

'O.035 0.035 Of 6

/5.1-3]

Humidity ( %)

Steam Steam-100 90 Max Time (2)-

1(h) 6(h)-

12(h) 100(day)-

f

-RCIC injection valve (1), check Temperature ( C )

171 100

~ 66-66'-

valve _(inside MS-tunnel), steam Pressure (Kg/cm*2 g) 1.05 0.035 0.035.

0-l lins isolation valve.[ Fig's.

Humidity ( %)

Steam Steam 100-

~ 90 Max 1.2-2, 1.2-3, 1.2-3a/5.4-8)

Time (2) 1(h) 6(h)'

12(h) 100(day)

.i

'RHR only division A) LPFL in-Temperature ( C )

171 100 66_

66' l!

jaction valve (1), check valve Pressure (Kg/cm*2 g) 1.05 0.035

.0.035 0.

-i (incide MS tunnel [ Fig's.

Humidity ( %)

Steam

' Steam

-100 90 Max-

]

L1.2-2, 1.2-3,>1.2-3a/5.4-10)

Time (2)-

1(h)'

6(h).

12(h) _100(day) j 171-100(3) 100 66 66-JIsolation_ valve (1) (MS line.

Temperature.( C.)

1.05 0.035-0.035

'0--

steem drain line) (Fig's.

Pressure (Kg/cm'2 g) 1.2-2, 1. 2-3, 1.2-3a/5.1-3)

Humidity.(.%)

Steam-Steam 100 90 Max-Time (2) 1(h) 6(h) 12(h) 100(day)

.j i --..- --.-..

+b-

t

-Tablo 3I.3-15:

l i

Thermodynamic Environment Conditions Inside Reactor Cuilding.

(Secodary Containent)

Plant Accident condition I

l i

i

.f v

.(1) Valve assemblies and cables required for valve operation are included (2) Time means the time from the occurrence of LOCA (3) The saturation temperature corresponding with the design i

pressure in secondary containment or the design pressure of blowout panel shall be applied.

Lj (4) 100C may be applied in the case that adequate separation in the arrangement is ensured and there is no possibility

+

of exposure to steam environment.

(5) Among the equipments required to operate during the i

accident and post accident conditions, the equipments that are related to the above equipments and arranged in the turbine building or reactor building (outside secondary

-i containment) will use the conditions specified in these (6) MCC and switchgear etc. related to ECCS that can not stand 100% humidity or high temperature shall be installed outside the secondary containment or in a room with other than reactor building (secondary containment) HVAC system.

'f r

i i

f P

e

.i 9

Li t

.i I

CI G 2.1.7_t

~

6.2.3.3.1.1 Design Bases The design of secondary containment compartments with respect to pressurization due to a pipe rupture is based upon the worst-case DBA rupture of a high energy line postulated to occur in each compartment through which high energy line passes (For detail regarding the pipe rupture location and configuration see Subsection 3. 6. 2).

The pipe rupture producing the highest mass and energy release rate, in conjunction with a worst case single active component failure was chosen for the pressurization analysis of each compartment.

For this analysis, a worst case single active-component failure is defined as the failure to close an isolation valve which separates the reactor pressure vessel from the high energy pipe break in the secondary containment. The design pressure for the compartment structure design will include some margin over the calculated peak differential pressure. The design margin is intended to make allowance for changes (piping, equipment layout arrangement) in the as-built compartment design.

6.2.3.3.1.2 Design Features The following paragraphs are brief description of the compartments analyzed for pressurization.

Figures 1.2-3 through 1.2-10 show compartment configurations, and component and equipment locations.

The schematic layout of the compartments, with the interconnecting vent paths and blowout panels, which were modeled and analyzed for various line breaks are shown in Figures 6.2-37A through 2.2-37C.

P 6.2.3.3.1.2.1 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Compartments The RCIC compartment is located in the secondary containment at Elevation (-)8200 mm, in the 0-90 degree quadrant of the reactor building.

The design basis break for the RCIC compartments is determined to be the single-ended break of 150 mm steam supply line to the RCIC turbine.

This line is a high energy line out to normally closed isolation valve inside the RCIC compartment.

It supplies high energy steam to RCIC turbine in the event of reactor vessel isolation.

In the event of a postulated design basis hi~gh energy line break in a compartment, the steam / air mixture from that compartment is directed into adjoining compartments and is eventually purged into the turbine building through the steam tunnel.

I r

i I

i t

g

~

6.2.3.3.1.2.2 Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) Equipment Rooms and Pipe Spaces The RWCU equipment (pump, heat exchanger, Filter /demineralizer, valves) and pipe spaces are located in the 0 - 270 degree quadrant of the reactor building, with floor elevations ranging are from Elevation (-) 8200 mm to Elevation (+) 12300 mm.

The design basis pipe break for the RWCU system compartment network is determine to be a 200 mm double-ended break of the cleanup water suction line from the RPV.

This high energy piping, which connects the RWCU equipment, originates at the reactor pressure vessel.

After being routed through the RWCU system, this line is directed back to the reactor pressure vessel through special pipe spaces and the steam tunnel.

In the event of a postulated design basis high energy line break in a compartment, the steam / air mixture from that compartment is directed into adjoining compartments and eventually purged into the turbine building through the steam tunnel.

6.2.3.3.1.2.3 Main Steam Tunnel The reactor building main steam tunnel is located between the primary containment vessel and the turbine building at Elevation

(+) 12300 mm and 0 degree azimuthal position.

The DBA for the steam tunnel is determine to be double-ended break of one of the four main steam lines.

These lines originate at the reactor pressure vessel and are routed through the main steam tunnel to the turbine building.

In the event of postulated design basis high energy line break, the steam / air mixture from the steam tunnel is purged into the turbine building.

4 Design Evaluation 6.2.3.3.1.3 The compartment response to the postulated high energy line break was calculated using the engineering computer program SCAM. A detail discussion of methodology and assumptions used in this program can be found in reference 4.

The initial conditions for the analysis include the assumption of 102%

rated reactor power and the compartment pressures, temperatures and relative humidity as tabulated in Table 6.2-3.

Blowout panels are used in place of open vent pathways when the environmental conditions of one compartment must be isolated from the environment in another compartment.

The blowout panels are assumed to open fully against a differential pressure of 0.0352 Kg/cm^2 g, and are assumed to remain open.

For the postulated high energy line break, the blowdown mass and energy release rates from the break were determined using moody's homogeneous equilibrium model for critical flow described in reference 2. The blowdown mass and energy release rate for the postulated High Energy Line Break (HELB) in a given compartment comprised of initial inventory depletion followed by steady critical flow from the ruptured pipe.

After the inventory depletion

period, break
flow, limited by critical flow consideration, continues until isolation valve is fully closed.

The following paragraphs describe the key assumptions and calculation of mass and energy release rates for the postulated HELB in the RCIC, RWCU, and Main Steam Tunnel compartments.

~

6.2.3.3.1.3.1 RCIC compartment For RCIC a single-ended pipe break,as noted earlier, was postulated.

The mass and energy blowdown release rate comprised only of flow from the RPV side.

The flow from the other' side of i

the break was assumed to be negligible.

The blowdown flow comprised of initial inventory depletion followed by steady critical flow from the RPV.

In computing the critical flow rate, flow loss factors between RPV and break location were ignored for conservatism. Tabulated values of mass energy release rate for the postulated break is shown in Table 6.2-4B-1. The total blowdown i

duration of 41 seconds, as obvious from tabulated values, is based on assumption that isolation valve starts closing at 11 seconds (1 second instrument response time and 10 seconds built in logic time delay) after the break and is fully closed in 30 seconds.

Considering that the isolation valve is gate valve, a non-linear flow area changes with respect to time were used during the valve closure period.

Figure 6.2.-37A shows the compartment nodalization scheme used for the pressurization analysis model for different break cases.

Table 6.2.3 shows the free volume, initial environmental conditions and DBA characteristics for the compartments which were analyzed.

Table 6.2-4 tabulates subcompartment vent path characteristic. The calculated peak differential pressures for the RCIC compartments are tabulated in Table-6.2-3.

b J

4

t l

1 l

l 6.2.3.3.1.3.2 RWCU compartment For RWCU a double-ended pipe break,as noted earlier, was postulated. The mass and energy blowdown release rate comprised of flow from both The RPV and BOP sides of the break location.

The flow from the RPV side comprised of initial inventory depletion j

.followed by steady. critical flow.

The flow from the BOP side is f

the depletion of inventory between the break location. and the i

closest check valve.

Flow loss factors due to pipe friction, and

[

other mechanical devises such as valves, elbows, tees, etc. were i

accounted for only in determining steady critical flow rate, and I

not in determining the depletion flow rate. Table 6.6-4A tabulates the flow loss factor considered for different postulated pipe break s

locations.

s After the initial inventory depletion period, the steady RPV blowdown is chocked at the venturi located upstream of the isolation valve, since venturi flow area is smaller then the isolation valve flow area.

At some point in time, after the isolation valve start closing, valve flow area will become equal to the. venturi flow area.. From that point.in time flow will chock-at

]

the isolation valve. The ' break flow ceased when isolation valve is i

4 i

fully closed.

Compartment pressurization analyses were done for postulated

[

pipe breaks in different compartments.

Tabulated mass and energy release rate for the postulated break. cases are shown in Table-6.2-4B-2.

The total blowdown duration of 76 second,.as-obvious j

from the tabulated values, is base on the assumption that isolation i

valve starts to'close at 46 seconds (1 second instrument response

~

time and 45 seconds built in logic time delay) after the break and the isolation valve is fully closed in 30 seconds.

Considering that the isolation valve is a gate valve, non-linear flow area changes with respect to time were used during the valve closure period.

Figures 6.2-37-C1 through 6.2-37-C3 show compartment nodalization scheme for the pressurization analyses for different break cases.

Table 6.2-3 shows the free volume, initial environmental conditions and DBA characteristics for the compartments which were analyzed.

Table 6.2-4 tabulates subcompartment vent path characteristic.

The calculated peak i

differential pressures for the RWCU compartments are tabulated in Table 6.2-3 i

b I

l.

6.2.3.3.1.3.3 Main Steam Tunnel A double ended Main steam Line (MSL) break was postulated.

The mass and energy release rate comprised of flow from both the RPV and BOP sides.

The blowdown flow comprised of initial inventory depletion followed by steady critical flow from the RPV and BOP sides.

In calculating the critical flow rate flow loss factors were ignored for conservatism.

Tabulated values of mass and energy release rate for the costulated MSL break is shown in Table 6.2-4B-3. The total blowdown duration of 5.5 seconds, as obvious from the tabulated values, is based on the assumption that the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) starts closing at.5 second after the break and is fully closed in 5 seconds. The duration of 5.5 seconds is the longest closing time for the MSIVs.

Figure 6.2-37B shows compartment nodalization scheme for the pressurization analyses for different postulated break cases.

l Table 6.2.3 shows the free volume, initial environmental conditions and DBA characteristics for the compartments analyzed. Table 6. 2-4 tabulates subcompartment vent path characteristic. The calculated peak differential pressures for the main steam tunnel compartments are tabulated in Table 6.2-3.

TABL'3 G. 2 -3 PU! COMPARTMENT NODAL DE!CRIPTION INITIAL CONDITIONS DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT BREAK CHARACTERISTICS CALC.

DESIGN (4)

BREAK (2)

PEAK PRESSURE VOLLME VOLLME TEMP.

PRESSURE HLMIDITY LOCAil0N BREAK LINE PRESSURE

( MARGIN)

MARGIN ID DESCRIPil0N m"3 (c)

Kg/ca^2 m (1)

VUELME ID IDENilFICAll0N Kg/cs"2 g Kg/ca"2 g 551 STEAM TUNMEL REACTOR BUILD.

1948 60 1.03 10.0 SS1 MAIN STEAM 0.60 0.77 28 552 STEAM TUNNEL BE1W.

RB. &TB.

244 60 1.03 10.0 552 MAIN STEAM 0.34 0.77 127 SS3 STEAM TUNNEL INSIDE TB.

850 60 1.03 10.0

[3]

[3]

[3]

[3]

554 STEAM TUNNEL INSIDE TB.

178 60 1.03 10.0

[3]

(3]

[3]

(3)

S55 TURBINE BUILDING 144982 40 1.03 10.0

[3]

(3)

(3)

[3]

SA1 RHR PUMP & HEAT EXCHANGER 631 40 1.03 10.0 SA2 (1)

RCIC (STEAM) 0.25 1.05 318 SA2 RCIC PUMP 8 TURBINE ROCM 542 40 1.03 10.0 SAE RCIC (STEAM) 0.24 1.05 345 SA3 ECCS-Div A B1F,82F, &B3F PS 356 4G 1.03 10.0 SA2 RCIC (STEAM) 0.20 1.05 419 SA4 Flo0R BM1F 389 40 1.03 10.0 SA2

[1]

RCIC (STEAM) 0.15 1.05 622 SA5 FPC DEMIN BACKWASH PUMPS 263 40 1.03 10.0 SA2 til RCic (STEAM) 0.18 See SR3 SA6 FPC PIPESPACE 61 40 1.03 10.0 SA2 til RCIC ( STE AM) 0.08 See SR5 SAT STEAM TUNNEL & PART OF 18.

3220 40 1.03 10.0 SA2 til RCIC (STEAM) 0.22 1.05 378 SA8 TURBINE BUILDING 144982 40 1.03 10.0

[3]

(3)

(31 (3)

SR1 TURBlWE BUILD.

144982 40 1.03 10.0 (31 (31 (31

[3]

SR2 RWCU PIPE ENTR/EXfi ROOM 122 40 1.03 10.0 SR2 RWCU 0.37 1.05 184 SR3 FPC DEMIN BACKWASH PUMPS 263 40 1.03 10.0 SR8 (1)

RVCU U.52 1.05 101 SR4 RWCU REGENER. HEAT 143 40 1.03 10.0 SR8 RWCU 0.60 1.05 75 EXCHANGER VALVE ROOM SRS FPC PIPESPACE 61 40 1.03 10.0 SR8

[1]

RWCU 0.51 1.05 108 SR6 RWCU PIPESPACE 36 40 1.03 10.0 SR6 RWCU 0.67 1.05 58 SR7 RWCU NON-REGENER. HEAT 110 40 1.03 10.0 SR8 RWCU 0.75 1.05 40 EXCHANGER VALVE ROOM &

RWCU PUMP VALVE ROOM SR8 RWCU NON-REGENER. &

361 40 1.03 10.0 SR8 RWCU 0.76 1.05 38 REGEN. HX.

ROOMS SR9 EL -8200 cooridor 937 40 1.03 10.0 SR8 Ill RWCU 0.75 1.05 41 SR10 RWCU PUMP ROOM A & B 249 40 1.03 10.0 SR8 RWCU 0.73 1.05 45 SR11 RWCU Fil1ER/DEMIN. RM. B 51 40 1.03 10.0 SR11 RWCU 0.73 1.05 45 SR12 RWCU FILTER /DEMIN. RM. A 51

- 40 1.03 10.0 SR12 RWCU 0.79 1.05 34 SR13 RWCU FILTER /DEMIN.

421 40 1.03 10.0 SR8 RWCU 0.52 1.05 101 VALVE ROOM A & B Note

[1]No RCIC or RWCU High Energy Line passes through the compartment.

[2} Break subcompartment causing maximum peak pressure.

[3]Iligh Energy Line Break analysis inside the Turbine Building is not required.

[4]The design pressures are to be used in conjunction with appropriate dynamic load factors for structural evaluations.

t

' TABLE 6.2-4.

SUBCOMPARTMENT VENT PATH DESCRIPTION sL0wouT FLOW FLOW HEAD LOSS OPENING VENT FROM TO CHOKED SONIC VENT VENT COE FFICIENT PRESSURE PATN' VOLT #IE VOLL8E OR OR.

AREA-LENGTN (DP)

ID

  1. 0DE ID NCDE ID UNCHOKED SUSSONIC (m*2)

(m)

FORuARD REVERSE (kg/cm2 g)

FA1 SA1 SA3 UNCHOKED SUBSONIC 48.77 0.5 1.56 1.69 (3)

FA2 SA2 SA3 152.40 0.5 0.89 1.13 (3)

FA3 SA3 SA4 24.38 0.5 1.35 (2) 0.035-FA4 SA4 SA6 30.48 1.0 1.21 (2) 0.035 FA5 SAS SA6 30.48 0.5 1.66 0.02 (3)

FA6 SA6 SA7 30.48 2.0 0.75 (2) 0.035 FA7 SA3 SA4 24.38 0.5 1.39 (2) 0.035 FA8 SA3 SA4 24.38 0.5 1 35 (2) 0.035 7A9 SA3 SA4 24.38 0.5 1.35 (2) 0.035 FA10 SA1 SA2 6.10 0.7 1.02 1.02 0.035 Fall SA7 SA8 170.63 27.7 0.56 0.62 (3) i FA12 SA7 SAB 106.25 0.3 0.48 1.61 (3)

FR1 SR2 SR1 60.96 2.0 0.7B (2) 0.035 y

FR2 SR5 SR1 30.48 2.0 0.75 (2) 0.035 FR3 SR6 SR2 24.38 0.9 1.40 0.02 (3)

FR4 SR8 SR4 15.24 0.9 1.31 1.24 (3) i FR5 SR4 SR6 24.38 0.9 0.02 0.73-(3)

FR6 SRB SR7 30.48 0.9 l'.43 1.29 0.035

[

FR7 SR8 SR7 30.48 0.9 1,43 1.29 0.035 FR8 SR10 SR7 24.38 0.9 1.22 1.36_

0.035.

j FR9 SR13 SR4 30.48 0.9 1.40 1.44 0.035 FRIO SR13 SR4 30.48.

0.9 1.40 1.44 0.035 a

FR11-SR3 SR5 30.48 0.5 1.66 0.02 (3)..

FR12 SR7 SR9 30.48 0.9 1.41 1.48 0.035 FR13 SRB-SR9 91.44 0.9 1.36 (2) 0.035 FR14 SR10 SR9 64.01 0.9 1.46 (2) 0.035-FRIS SRB SR4 76.20 0.9 1.42 0.9-0.035

{

FR16 SR6 SR5 27.43

_ 0.9 0.88 0.88 0.035 FR17 e

Deleted Deleted b

FR18 SR11 SR6 18.29 0.9 1.30 (2) 0.035 FR19 SR11 SR6 18.29 0.9 1.30 (2) 0.035 FR20 SR13 SR3 18.29 0.9 1.39 1.26

-0.035 t

FR21 SR13 SR3 18.29 0.9 1.39 1.26 0.035 FR22 (see note 1 below) 59.13 (see note 1 below)

FR23 (see note 1 below) 106.07 (see note 1 below)

FR24 SR12 SR11 45.72 0.9 1.24 (2) 0.035 FR25 SR12 SR11 45.72 0.9 1.24 (2)-

0.035 i

FR26 (see note 1 below) 109.73 (see note 1 below)

FR27 15.24 j

FR28 15.85 FR29 92.05 v

y y

y v

FS1 SS3 SR2 194.83 0.3 1.58 0.'49 (3)

IS2 SS2 SR3 194.83 0.3 0.49 1.72-(3)

FS3 SS3 SS4 106.25 0.3 1.76 0.48 (3)

FS4 SS2 SS5 170.63' 27.7 0.56 0.62 (3)

FSS SS4 SS5 106.25 0.3 0.48 1.61 (3)

FS6 SR5 ATM.

60.96 0.9 0.52 (2) 0.035 FS7 SR5 ATM.

[

\\[

60.96-0.9 0.52 (2) 0.03C FS8 SR5 ATM.

I 60.96 0.9 0.52 (2) 0.035 l

NOTES:

(1) Indicates vent paths internal to a node.

(2) Indicates one-directional blow-out panel. Reverse loss coefficient not applicable.

(3) Indicates flowpath without blowout panel.

r i

TABLE 6. 2--4 A FLOW LOSS FACTOR PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE MECHANICAL OVERALL (1)

BREAK ID LENGTH FRICTION LOSS LOSS LOSS WCDE (m)

(m)

FACTOR COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT 881 LOSSES NOT CONSIDERED 882 LOSSES NOT CONSIDERED 883 NO BREAK POSTULATED CS4 NO BREAK POSTULATED S85 NO BI EAK POSTULATED CA1 NO HIGH ENERGY LINES PRESENT SA2 LOSSES NOT CONSIDERED SA3 LOSSES NOT CONSIDERED BA4 NO HIGH ENERGY LINES PRESENT CAS NO HIGH ENERGY LINES PRESENT SA6 NO HIGH ENERGY LINES PRESENT CA7 NO HIGH ENERGY LINES PRESENT SR1 NO BREAK POSTULATED CR2 0.05816 56 0.015 4.4 1.7 6.1 SR3 NO HIGH ENERGY LINES PRESENT BR4 0.05816 89 0.015 7.0 3.4 10.4 SR5 NO HIGH ENERGY LINES PRESENT SR6 0.05816 66 0.015 5.2 1.7 6.9 SR7 0.05816 98 0.015 7.7 57.1 64.7 BR8 0.05816 93 0.015 7.3 3.7 11.0 CR9 NO HIGH ENERGY LINES PRESENT SR10 0.05816 171 0.015 13.4 92.6 100.0 SR11 0.05816 210 0.015 16.5 203.3 100.0 SR12 0.05816 210 0.015 16.5 203.3 100.0 BR13 0.05816 210 0.015 16.5 203.3 100.0 N3te

[1] Overall Loss Coefficient is limited to 100

.~

~

i Table 6.2.4B-1

+

)

MASS AND ENERGY RELEASE RATE l

I Ere k in subcompartment SA2 RCIC Fump & Turbine Room cad in subcompartment SA3 s

ECCS Division A 51F,32F, & 53F' i

Pipespace(Figure 6.2.37A) i Enthalpy Time Mass Enthalpy Release Flowrate Rate (sec)

(kg/sec) (Joule / gram)

(KJ/sec)

[

0.00 189.9 2754.57 5.23E+05 11.00 189.9 2754.57 5.23E+05 5

17.00 170.8 2754.57 4.70E+05

'23.00 140.4 2754.57 3.87E+05 41.00.

0.0 2754.57 0.00E+00 1.00E+0B 0.0 2754.57 0.00E+00

[

5 l

i.

f f

h f

l 4

h

?

7 e

.t I

~~-

c t

i j

Table 6.2.4B-2 NASS AND ENERGY RELEASE RATE 2 rock in subcompartment SR2 Break in subcompartment SR4 l

RWCU Entrance Room Regenerative Beat Exchanger (Figure 6.2.37c-2)

Valve Room & Pipespace

}

(Figure 6.2.37c-2)

]

Enthalpy Enthalpy J

. Time Mass Enthalpy Release Time Mass.

Enthalpy Release

{

Flowrate Rate Flowrate Rate (cec)

(kg/sec) (Joule / gram)

(KJ/sec)

(sec)

(kg/sec) Joule / gram (KJ/sec) 0.00 782.4 1224.67 9.58E+05 0.00 782.4 1224.67 9.58E+05 3.12 782.4 1224.67 9.58E+05 4.92 782.4 1224.67 9.58E+05 i

3.12 655.8 1224.67 8.03E+05 4.92 621.3 1224.67 7.61E+05-

.i 9.85 655.8 1224.67 8.03E+05 8.05 621.3 1224.67 7.61E+05 l

9.85 376.3 1002.25 3.77E+05 8.05 341.9 979.92 3.35E+05i l

59.65 376.3 1002.25 3.77E+05 57.85 341.9 979.92 3.35E+05 59.65 376.3 923.62 3.48E+05 57.85 341.9 893.14 3.05E+05

.i 64.05 376.3 923.62 3.48E+05 64.05 341.9 893.14 3.05E+05 70.56 232.1 923.62 2.14E+05 68.76 251.1 893.14-2.24E+05 70.56 120.3 1224.67 1.47E+05 68.76 139.4 1224.67 1.71E+05 76.00 0.0 1224.67 0.00E+00 76.00 0.0 1224.67 0.00E+00 1.00E+08 0.0 0.00 0.00E+00

' 00E+08 0.0 0.00' O.00E+00 i

P. rock in subcompartment SR6 Break in subcompartment SR7 RWCU Pipespace Non-Regenerative Beat Exchanger t

(Figure 6.2.37c-2)

Valve Room & RWCU Pump pipe space

[

(Figure 6.2.37c-2)

[

Enthalpy Enthalpy1 Time Mass Enthalpy Release Time Mass Enthalpy Release i

Flowrate Rate Flowrate Rate (see)

(kg/sec) (Joule / gram)

(KJ/sec)

(sec)

(kg/sec) Joule / gram (KJ/sec) 0.00 782.4 1224.67 9.58E+05 0.00 503.0 1058.32 5.32E+05 3.66 782.4 1224.67 9.58E+05 12.97

-503.0 1058.32 5.32E+05 t

3.66 649.5 1224.67 7.95E+05 12.97 204.4 815.20 1.67E+05 9.31 649.5 1224.67 7.95E+05 60.29 204.4 815.20 1.67E+05 9.31 370.0 998.53 3.70E+05 60.29 92.6 1224.67 1.13E+05 59.12 370.0 998.53 3.70E+05 64.05 92.6.

1224.67 1.13E+05 59.12 370.0 918.50 3.40E+05 76.00 0.0 1224.67 0.00E+00:

i 64.05 370.0 918.50 3.40E+05 1.00E+08 0.0 0.00 0.00E+00

[

70.02 240.9 918.50 2.21E+05 70.02 129.1 1224.67 1.58E+05

[

76.00 0.0 1224.67 0.00E+00 1.00E+08 0.0 0.00 0.00E+00 S

Y

-i i

k i

t i

E i

Table 6.2.4B-2 continued MA88 AND ENERGY RELEASE RATE l

1 Ereak in subcompartment.8R8 Break in subcompartment SR10 RWCU Regenerative Beat Exchanger &

RWCU Pump A & B Rooms Noa-Regenerative Beat Exchanger (Figure 6.2.37c-2)

(

(Figu're 6.2.37c-2) 1 Enthalpy Enthalpy Time Mass Enthalpy Release Time Mass Enthalpy Release Flowrate Rate Flowrate Rate f

(ese)

(kg/sec) (Joule / gram)

(KJ/sec)

(sec)

(kg/sec) Joule / gram (KJ/sec)

O.00 782.4 1224.67 9.58E+05 0.00 223.5 1224.67 2.74E+05 5.14 782.4 1224.67 9.58E+05 17.02 223.5 1224.67 2.74E+05 5.14 617.1 1224.67 7.56E+05 17.02 111.8 1224.67 1.37E+05 t

7.83 617.1 1224.67 7.56E+05 34.69 111.8 1224.67 1.37E+05-7.83 337.7 976.90 3.30E+05 34.69 111.8 1224.67 1.37E+05 l

57.63-337.7 976.90 3.30E+05 36.77 111.8 1224.67 1.37E+05 57.63 337.7 888.95 3.00E+05 36.77 391.2 1224.67 4.79E+05 l

64.05 337.7 888.95 3.00E+05 49.73 391.2 1224.67 4.79E+05 68.54 252.7 1224.67 3.10E+05 49.73 68.5 1224.67 8.39E+04 68.54 141.0 1224.67 1.73E+05 64.05 68.5 1224.67 8.39E+04 76.00 0.0 1224.67 0.00E+00 76.00 0.0 1224.67, 0.00E+00 1.00E+08 0.0 0.00 0.00E+00 1.00E+08 0.0 1224.67 0.00E+00 i

-l r

.t I

Eroak in subcompartment SR11 Break in subcompartment SR13 I

cad SR12 RWCU Filter /Demin B Room RWCU Filter /Demin A & B Valve Rooms i

RWCU Filter /Demin A or B (Figure 6.2.37c-1)

'l (Figure 6.2.37c-3)

Enthalpy Enthalpy Time Mass Enthalpy Release Time Mass Enthalpy Release

[

Flowrate Rate Flowrate Rate l

(cac)

(kg/sec) (Joule / gram)

(KJ/sec)

(sec)

(kg/sec) Joule / gram (KJ/sec)

[

0.00 194.8 590.00 1.15E+05 0.00 503.0 999.46 5.03E+05

[

9.90 194.8 590.00 1.15E+05 9.90 503.0 999.46 5.03E+05

[

9.90 503.0 1167.67 5.87E+05 9.90 503.0 1167.67 5.87E+05 30.55 503.0 1167.67 5.87E+05 30.55 503.0 1167.67 5.87E+05 30.55 180.2 1065.77 1.92E+05 30.55 180.2 1065.77 1.92E+05 64.05 180.2 1065.77 1.92E+05

'64.05 180.2 1065.77 1.92E+05

-64.05 180.2 1065.77 1.92E+05 64.05 180.2 1065.77 1.92E+05

-76.00 111.8 968.52 1.08E+05 76.00 111.8 968.52 1.0BE+05 i

136.42 111.8 968.52 1.08E+05 136.42 111.8 968.52 1.08E+05 i

136.42 0.0 0.00 0.0Cg+00 136.42 0.0 0.00 0.00E400

[

1.00E+08 0.0 0.00 0.00E+00 1.00E+08 0.0 0.00 0.00E+00 i

I f

f i

f

'1 Table-6.2.4B.l MASS AND ENERGY RELEASE RATE l

)

Crock in subcompartment SS1 (steam tunnel)

[

Main' Steam Line Break.

i (Figure 6.2.375)

Enthalpy Time Mass Enthalpy Release Flowrate Rate (soc)

(kg/sec) (Joule / gram)

(KJ/sec) 0.0000 5142.9 2770.86 1.43E+07 0.0010 10450.8 1431.96 1.50E+07 0.0059 10450.8 1431.96 1.50E+07 O.0062 7306.6 1431.96 1.05E+07 5

I 0.0685 7306.6 1431.96 1.05E+07 0.1779 7301.6 1431.73 1.05E+07 0.2872 7296.1 1431.26 1.04E+07 i

0.3966 7286.6 1431.03 1.04E+07 0.4747 7281.6 1430.79 1.04E+07 0.5060 7271.7 1430.79 1.04E+07 f

0.5216 7250.8 1430.56 1.04E+07 0.5841 7155.6 1430.33 1.02E+07 0.6622 7034.5 1430.10 1.01E+07 0.8029 6823.1 1429.63 9.75E+06

'O.9103 6661.7 1429.40 9.52E+06 1.0001 6525.6 1429.17 9.33E+06 1.0782 6409.5 1428.93 9.16E+06 1.9982 5049.0 1426.84 7.20E+06 3.0607 3521.1 1427.30 5.03E+06 5.4357

-95.7 1438.70 1.38E+05 t

5.5 0

1438.70 0.00E+00 t

i l

t h

t B

h t

e s

I

t i

m m

- FLOW PATH LEGEND SA# suBCOMPARTMENT

{>

FLOW PATH,0NE DIRECTIONAL l

i NUMBER BLOWOUT PANEL bAb O FLOW PATH,TWO DIRECTICNAL FA#

FLOWPATH NUMBER BLOWOUT PANEL f

. h HELB-di JL EL=. T. M. s. t.

FA10 Fall U

U f

STEAM TUNNEL &

[

PART OF TURBINE FPC DEMIN BACKWASH FA5 FPC PIPE SPACE PUMI A&B m

s r

SA5 SA6 1

SA7 (EL-1700)

(EL 4800 )

(EL12300)'

Al f

FA4 i

FA3 C

l BMIF FLOOR ECCS DIVISION A i

B1F,B2F AND B3F m

FA8 j

SA4 c

PIPE SPACE

, FA9,

I (EL8500J h

I l

FA2 FA1 f

=

=

i SA3

~

(EL-1700) lE lf RHR PUMP &

3

'RCIC PUMP HEAT EXCHANGER l

g g

~

TURBINE ROOM FA10l-SA1 SA2 j

(Et - 8 2 = 3_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

FIGURE 6.2-37A.

SECONDARY CONTAINMENT SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM.

(EMERGENCY CORE. COOLING / REACTOR CORE ISOLATION'. COOLING) j i

s AMENDMENT 9-

l LE(*)END h FLOW PATH l?

FLCW PATH,CNE DIRECTIONAL

$$g iTisCOMPA%TMENT

. BLOWOUT PANEL l

gg.37g, FS# Flow PATH NUMBER FLOW PATH,TWO DIRECTIONAL BLOWOUT PANEL i

ATMOSPHERE SS6

[

ll il ik FS6 FS7 FS8 TURBINE BUILDING SS5 i

JL h

FS4 FS5 V

U STEAM STEAM STEAM.

TUNNEL STEAM TUNNEL TUNNEL BETWEEN TUNNEL INSIDE INSIDE.

REACTOR TURBINE REACTOR TURBINE FS3 BUILDING FS1 BUILDING FS2 BUILDING BUILDING SCTION 2 SCTION 1 m

TURBINE BUILDING SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 O

O FIGURE 6.2-37B.

SECONDARY CONTAINMENT SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM.

(MAIN STEAM /FEEDWATER)

t i

LEGEND c = rLoW PATS TURBINE BUILDING SR# SUBCOMPARTMENT M FLOW PATH,0NE DIRECTIONAL AND STEAM TUNNEL 5

NUMBER BLOWOUT FANEL S# FLOW PATH NUMBER I 'gI FLOW PATH,TWO DIRECTIONAL SR1 BLOWOUT PANEL (L12300)

EL= T N. S. L.

p 7

ggt 3 h

h FR2 RWCU PIFE FETURN & PIPE SPACE I

(L123coJ_

SR2 l

FR1 h

rR3 If FR25

,---- g

...-._3 FR18 FPC

,4 _ q _ _ _,,

RWOU 4 I sRWCU e

aRWCU 8

PIPE FR16l 7

PIPE I FILTER 8 8

C

' FILTER SPACE

' D EMI N-B '* - -I- - - ' U E*I"~^

8 8

8 SPACE FR19 l

FR24 e

a 8

SR5

, SR11 *

' SR12 8

SR6 8

(EL4800)

( EL 4800)

E 4800)

FR11 FR5 FPC DEMIN REGENERATIVE FRIS BACKWASH HX VALVE &

q 1,

y r

PUMP A&B PIPESPASE

_ _l 1RWCU SR4

=

gREG I (EL -1700)

SR3 (rL-1700)

HX FR4

- A h

h h

I FR21 --

FR20 FR10 --

-- FR9 l

I 1r 1 r 1r 1r i

I l- - -l SR13 @,- - - l 1

lRWOU

~ ~, ~g D l

  • ER l

(EL-1700)l

~

I

~~

FILTER DEMIN-A A

k I **'78 Iw- - - - - -g VALVE I

I 1

I FR29 i

(GRATING) i l

l (EL-1700)__{__ l I

e I

e SR8 I

lf

- -l t

lRWCU 4

u S

lNON-REGI Hx i

1 4

u FR13 g

l 4 -i-SR9 l

1 (EL - 82 00 J,, _

~

FIGURE 6.2-37C-1.

SECONDARY CONTAINMENT SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM.

(REACTOR WATER CLEAN UP SYSTEM)

.j i

Ipgg FLOW PATH NUM LEGEND "5

FLOW PATH SR$ SUBCOMPARTMENT Im TURBINE BUILDING I-FLOW PATH,0NE DIRECTIONAL AND STEAM TUNNEL NUMBER Ag&

'l-FLOW PATH,TWO DIRECTIONAI SR1

~

BLOwCUT P ANEL (L123ooJ EL= T M. S. L.

HELB L

N FR2 RWCU PIPE P.ETURN & PIPE SPACE (L12300)

SR2 l

FR1 JL FR3 U

I FPC FR16 PIPE l

5 RWCU SPACE PIFE SPACE SRS SR6

( EL 4800}

( EL 4800}

FR11 FRS 7

R GENERATIVE FR15

--~~ge pC DE 4

l D

l 8 BACKWASH

^

I PUMP A&B I lRWCU SR4 h c p

gREG l (EL -17o0)~ ~ SR3 (EL -1700)

HX

~ ~ "j [ #

jg FR4 l

I FR21

,L

-l-FR20 FRIO--

-- FR9 l

l j

y V

U l

l SR13 gp-g

--gi RWCU 4 --- g RWCU 8

l e I FILTER I FR26 IFILTER l,

(EL-1700)_g I

DEMIN-B DEMIN-A e

j 4 - - - - - - M VALVE 8

8 8 l VALVE 8

I FR27 I

I I8 FR29 i

e 3

(GRATING) 1 ll l

ftI,-1700) l l

FR7 i

4 l

?

[ PUMP -- l SR7 l NON-REG l SRB i

I j VALVE I-l HX pg6 ROOM VALVE C

l V

I4._____FR2,8 l ROOg

--q

+

l l

l l

FR12 RWCU I

lNON-REGI

- - - -- [EL -510 0 ). _,__ _ _I FR8 m

m 3

l3x l

~

FR14 FR13 g

l l

SR10 RWOU PUMP RWCU PUMP dl l ROOM-A l

@l ROOM-B SR9 l

1 FR22

+ 1- -

p - FR2 3-l---- M- - --l (EI. -eroc)I I

l (EL -8200]

FIGURE 6.2-37C-2.

SECONDARY CONTAINMENT SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM (REACTOR WATER CLEAN UP SYSTEM)

LEGEND c5 rLoW PATH SR# SUBCOMPARTMENT FLOW PATH,0NE DIRECTICNAL TURBINE BUILDING NUMBER BLOWOUT. PANEL AND STEAM TUNNEL FS# FLOW PATH NUMBER q% FLOW PATH,TWO DIPECTIONA:

SR1 BLOWOUT PANEL EW.M. s. t.

(L123o0)

HELB O

h FR2 EwCU PIPE RETUPN & Pier SPACE l

(L12300)_

FR1 SR2 h

FR3 FR25 y

RWCU C

E C

PIPE RWCU RWCU SPACE FR16 SPACE FILTER FILTER FR19 DEMIN-B s

DEMIN-A FR24 SR5

= l SR6 SR11 SR12

( EL 4800)

( EL 480o)

[

,,oo h

FR11 FRS Y

y FR15

["p*CDUIN B

REGENERATIVE

~

8 HX VALVE &

C f

7 8 BACKWASH

_,, l

[

PIPESPASE l

8 PUMP A&B 8 REG l SR3 SR4 4

lHX (EL -17eo)!- h-- g-

{gx,,17ogy_

h h

I I

FR21-l_

-l-FR20 FRIO--

- - FR9 l

I f

f V

1r l

g c---------...

l SR13

l- -

j+ _4____,,RwCU-g I

s (EL-1700)i RwCU IFILTER I FR26 IFILTER l8 VALVE

- - - -. h VALVEDEMIN-A l 3 I DEMIN-B 8

8 8

ll l

FR27 g

FR29 s

i (GRATING l ll l

(Et -17oo]

i l s---------.....

1 SR8 i

lf

_.q RWCU lNON-REGI E

1**

I 8

FR13 g

  • -+-

SR9 l

l t

(EI, -820c)I I

(EL -e200J FIGURE 6.2-37C-3.

SECONDARY CONTAINMENT SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGPAM.

(REACTOR WATER CLEAN UP SYSTEM)

i DFSER OPEN ITEM 6.2.1.6.3: CONTAINMENT MODELING CONCERN i

RESPONSE

In response to the Open Item 6.2.1.6-3, the following paragraphs provide an overview of ABWR containment design features, containment loads and load application methodology, t

and a discussion of key features of the ABWR test results and their comparison with those observed from prior BWR tests. Significance of ABWR design features to containment loads is also discussed, as and where applicable.

ABWR CONTAINMENTDESIGN FEATURES The basic features and configuration of the ABWR containment design are shown in Figure 1. The ABWR containment design utilizes horizontal vent system similar to prior Mark III design, and a confined wetwell air space separated from the drywell by a diaphragm floor similar to that in Mark II design. In addition, as a unique feature, the ABWR design includes a lower drywell (IJD).

The ABWR containment design uses the same X-quencher discharge device as that used in Mark II and Mark III designs. Tne discharge device, shown in Figure 2, is a diffuser device comprised of a short conical extension of the vertical terminus of the SRV discharge line and a capped cylindrical central section or, plenum from which four perforated, capped arms extend. The development and design of this quencher device was based on many years of testing and development work, and performance of this device has been well tested and confirmed through scaled and large-scale (including in-plant tests) testing.

ABWR CONTAINMENTLOADS As with prior BWR containment designs, ABWR containment structure will be subjected to hydrodynamic loads due to a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and SRV actuation events, in a manner similar to that in prior containment designs. These loads were

i developed using ABWR test results and approved methodology, and they were defined for ABWR containment structure design evaluation.

l

1. LOCA Isads During a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) inside the drywell, containment structure will be subjected to the following three sequential loading conditions significant to the containment structure design:

A.

Pool Swellloads l

B Condensation Oscillation (CO) loads C Chugging loads l

l. A.

Pool Swell Loads Following a postulated LOCA and after the water is cleared from the vents, air / steam mixture from the drywell flows into the suppression pool creating a large bubble at vent exit as it exits into the pool. Bubble at vent exit expands to suppression pool hydrostatic pressure, as the air / steam mixture flow continues from the pressurized drywell. Water ligament above the expanding bubble is accelerated upward by the difference between the bubble pressure and the air space pressure above the pool. This acceleration ofwater ligament gives rise to pool swell phenomena, which, typically, lasts for a couple of l

seconds.

During this pool swell phase, wetwell region is subjected to the hydrodynamic loading conditions, and they are:

o Loads on suppression pool boundary and drag loads on structures initially submerged in the pool, due to the pressurized and expanding bubble at vent exit; o Loads on wetwell airspace boundary (including the diaphragm floor), due to rising pool which compresses the wetwell air space.

(

i i.

1 i

i i

i Impact and drag loads on structures located above the initial pool surface, i

o due to the rising pool surface.

t From structure design standpoint, the most imponant aspects of the pool swell phenomena are peak pool swell height and peak pool swell velocity. The former determines region ofimpact/ drag loading condition, whereas the later determines severity of the loading condition.

ABWR Pool Swell Load _3 i

ABWR pool swell response calculations to quantify pool swell loads were based on a simplified, one dimensional analytical model, same as that reviewed and accepted by the staff (NEDE-21544P/NUREG-0808) for application to Mark 11 plants. This analytical model was qualified against Mark II full-scale test data.

The ABWR design utilizes a confined wetwell air space similar to that in Mark II design, but its vent system design is quite different than that in Mark II design. The ABWR vent system design utilizes horizontal vents similar to that in Mark III design. Therefore, recognizing this difference in vent system design, additional studies comparing model against Mark III horizontal vent test data were performed to assure adequacy of the model for application to i

ABWR.

Model Vs Mark III Horizontal Vent Test Data Model input / assumptions used in predicting Mark III test data for model comparison were same as prescribed in NEDE-21544P. Mark III horizontal i

vent system features were modeled in the following manner:

Pool swell water slug was approximated by a constant thickness equal to o

top vent submergence; Drywell pressure transient and vent clearing times input based on test o

data;

Vent flow area increased in order with the clearing of middle and bottom o

vents.

Test data used for model comparison were taken from full-scale and sub-scale tests, and they were representative of ABWR submergence to pool width ratio.

The test data used in model comparison are listed in Table 1.

Comparison results, summarized in Table 2 and sample results shown in Figures 3 and 4, demonstrate that the model over predicts the horizontal vent test data These comparison results demonstrated and assured adequacy of the model for calculating ABWR pool swell response.

ABWR pool swell response calculations were done using the analytical model described above. Modeling scheme for ABWR calculations was consistent with that used in model vs test data comparison. For an added conservatism in model predictions, water slug surface area occupied by the air bubble was taken as 80% of the total pool surface area in pool swell response calculations.

Calculation results, exhibited in Figures 5 and 6, show that 80% pool area assumption yields conservative pool swell response results.

ABWR Pool Swell Response ABWR pool swell response calculation results exhibited trend similar to that in Mark II and Mark III designs. However, in comparison with Mark II and Mark III pool swell response values, ABWR results were found to be milder milder. Also, ABWR response calculations showed wetwell airspace pressure remaining below the drywell pressure during the pool swell transient, indicating l

no negative pressure on the diaphragm floor. Key aspects of the pool swell response results are presented below:

MarkII Mark III ABWR (Typ)

(GESSAR)

Peak Pool Swell Velocity (R/sec) 19 32 40 Peak Pool Swell Height (R) 23 18 18

i Higher pool swell velocity for Mark 11 can be attributed to higher drywell i

pressurization rate (drywell volume / break area of 260E+3 for ABWR vs 60E+3 for Mark II.). Higher velocity for Mark III can be attributed to i

higher drywell pressurization rate (260E+3 for ABWR vs 80E+3 for Mark I

III) combined with a much larger wetwell airspace volume (2.lE+5 cu ft for ABWR vs 11.4E+5 for Mark III).

ABWR peak pool swell height is conservatively represented by maximum swell-height calculated with the model (i.e., elevation corresponding to zero velocity), which turns out to be about two times top vent initial submergence.

Mark II and Mark III peak swell height based on conservative envelope of test data are:

o Mark II Height:

1.5 times initial submergence o Mark III Height:

2.4 times initial submergence ABWR Pool Swell Loads Impact and drag loads on structures above the initial pool surface were determined using the same methodology as that approved for Mark II/III containment designs. The design loads for structure evaluation were determined using the ABWR pool swell transient response results based on 80% pool area assumption, which are:.

i o Peak Pool Swell Velocity (ft/sec) 19

=

o Peak Pool Swell Height (ft) 23

=

Drag loads on stmetures initially submerged in the pool were determined based on the methodology approved for Mark II/III designs.

l 1.B:

Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads 5

The condensation oscillation (CO) period of a postulated LOCA follows the pool swell transient. During the CO period, the steam condensation process at the vent exit induces pressure loads on the containment system including the suppression pool boundary and structures initially submerged in the pool. The CO loads were determined based on data from ABWR horizontal-vent tests.

ABWR Horizontal-Vent Tests 3

A test program was conducted to confirm the condensation oscillation (CO) loading conditions which could occur in the event of LOCA in an ABWR l

plant. This test program was conducted anticipating that CO loads might differ from prior (Mark III) testing in horizontal-vent facilities for several reasons.

These included i) pressurization of the wetwell airspace, ii) the presence of a lower drywell (IJD), iii) the smaller number of horizontal vents (30 m ABWR vs 120 in Mark III), iv) extension of the vents into the suppression pool, v) vent submergence (11 n in ABWR vs 7.5 n in Mark III), and vi) suppression pool width (24.6 fl in ABWR vs 20.5 n in Mark III).

[

The test program consisted of a total of 13 simulated blowdowns in sub-scaled test facility representing a one-cell (360 ) sector of the ABWR horizontal vent design, which included a single vertical / horizontal vent module. The sub-scaled (SS) test facility was geometrically (all linear dimensions scaled by a factor of 2.5) similar to the prototypical ABWR design, and the single vertical / horizontal vent module included all three horizontal vents, as shown in i

Figure 7. In these tests, full-scale thermodynamic conditions were employed.

This approach is based on the belief that condensation phenomena at the vent exit are mainly governed by the thermodynamic properties of the liquid and vapor phases. In accordance with this scaling procedure, measured pressure amplitudes are equal to full-scale values at geometrically similar locations whereas measured frequencies are 2.5 times higher than the corresponding full-I scale frequencies. Thus, this scaling procedure made it possible to use the measured SS data directly for load defmition purpose after the time scale is compressed by a factor of 2.5.

i

?

\\

ABWR CO Data In general, basic features of the ABWR CO data were consistent with those observed in tests for prior BWRs.

Liquid breaks resulted in pressure amplitudes greater than with steam breaks and CO amplitudes increase significantly with increasing pool temperature and break size, same trend as observed in Mark II/III tests. Prepurging ofthe vent system and the IJD showed no significant effect on maximum CO amplitudes.

Maximum CO amplitudes showed a weak sensitivity to increasing wetwell overpressure ( a slight increase in Maximum CO amplitude with increasing overpressure).

The CO pressure oscillations were characterized by two dominant frequencies, one around 2.5 hertz and a second around 5 hertz. It is hypothesized that the lower frequency is representative ofvent acoustic frequency whereas the higher frequency is associated with the vent exit frequency. The vent acoustic frequency is representative of drywell-to-wetwell connecting vent, and the vent exit frequency is representative ofdiameter at vent exit. This observation is consistent with prior BWR CO tests which exhibited presence ofvent acoustic

. i t

and vent exit frequencies.

ABWR CO Loads The ABWR load definition used the " source-load" approach, instead of usmg the " wall-load" approach. With a source load approach, it becomes possible to account for the spatial distribution of the load and the variation of pool and vent fluid properties in a mechanistic way. The major criterion for the i

development of the source load is to show that it produces pool pressures i

which match the envelope PSDs of the SS tests at the pressure measurement i

locations. A second criterion is that the pressure histories produced by the source show behavior similar to the measured pressures.

t 1

O

~

2 Figure 8 shows pressure time history representative of ABWR CO load determined using the source load approached described above. Figure 9 shows pressure time history representative of Mark III CO loads. This I

pressure time history is based on Mark III CO correlation described and l

discussed in GFSSAR. In comparison, ABWR presmre amplitudes are higher than for Mark III design.

i The higher amplitudes in ABWR can be attributed to deeper ricmergence in l

ABWR (11.6 fl vs 7.5 ft), and the fact that in ABWR tests all three horizontal vents remained open during the maximum CO period whereas in Mark III tests I

the bottom and middle vents were closed at the onset of CO conditions. There may be some partial contribution from increasing wetwell overpressure in ABWR tests.

I Load Application Methodoloey For design evaluation of containment stmeture, the pool boundary pressure

[

loads obtained from analysis of single-vent (36')model of the prototypical ABWR design were specified and applied over the full (360*) model of the ABWR configuration. This CO loading specification implies all vertical vents are in phase (i.e., no credit for phasing among vents), which is considered to be a conservative load definition approach.

t 1.C:

ABWR Chuecine Loads Chugging (CH) loading condition, which follows the CO loading condition, occurs during periods oflow vent steam mass flux. Steam condensation i

process during low vent mass flux, typically, produces a sharp pressure pulse followed by a damped oscillation. Chugging, an intermittent event, is the result ofunsteady condensation occurring in the last stage of the LOCA blowdown.

The CH loads were determined and based on data from ABWR horizontal-vent i

tests.

A test program was conducted to confirm CH loading condition which could occur in the event of LOCA in an ABWR plant. The tests were conducted using the same vessel as for the sub-scale testing, but with a full-scale f

i

i n

t vertical /hodzontal vent system, see Figure 10. This approach is termed as partial full-scale (FS*) testing. Only two full scale horizontal vents maintaining p ototypical vertical vent to vent spacing were installed, because of space limitation in the sub-scale pool. In all eleven tests were conducted with the vent system purged of air to produce conservative CH loads.

CH Loads i

?

A chugging source load definition was developed, on the basis of FS* tests, using key-chug approach. Chugs which produce large peak pressure amplitudes are termed key chugs. The criterion for the development ofload definition was that the source load, when applied to an appropdate analytical model of the FS* facility, produces a wall pressure which matches the measured key-chug wall pressure. The key-chug approach was used successfully for the Mark II chugging load definition.

Basic characteristic features of a typicallarge chug from the FS* testing, shown in Figure 11. It is characterized by a small underpressure, followed by a positive pressure pulse, and a decaying ringout. Chugging data from Mark II and Mark III testing also exhibited similar features.

t Load Application Methodology L

The pool boundary pressure loads obtained from analysis of a single-vent (36 )

I sector model of the prototypical ABWR design were specified for application I

over the full (360 ) model of the prototypical ABWR facility. To bound -

symmetric and asymmetric loading conditions, two load cases were defined.

Case 1:

All vents chugging in phase.

Case 2:

Vents in one half 180 out of phase with the other halfvents i

F

2. SRVActuation Loads P

r Afler the air exits into the suppression pool, during the actuation of SRV, the air bubbles coalesce and oscillate as Rayleigh bubble while rising to the pool free surface.

The oscillating air bubbles produce hydrodynamic loads on the pool boundary and drag loads on structures submerged in the pool. After the air has been expelled, steam exits steadily and condenses in the pool. This condensing steady state SRV steam flow has been found to produce negligible pressure loading on the pool boundary, as evident from testing of this X-quencher discharge desice.

The calculation methodology used for defining the quencher air-clearing pool boundary loads for the ABWR design is based on and consistent with the staff approved methodology (documented in NUREG-0802) for Mark II and Mark III designs equipped with the X-quencher discharge device.

For design evaluation ofcontainment stmeture, both single and multiple valve discharges for first and subsequent actuation were considered. As a conservative approach, the ABWR containment structure is evaluated and designed for the most severe symmetric and asymmetric loading conditions:

t i

Svmmetric loading condition - All oscillating air bubbles from all valves in phase.

a.

b. Asymmetric loadina condition - Oscillating air bubbles in one half of the pool 180" k

out of phase to those in the other half of the pool.

I h

b

TA B> L Ti-1 POOL SWELL MODEL COMPARISON WITH PSTF TEST DATA PSTF TEST CONDITIONS i

i PSTF FLOW VENT

  1. OF TOP VENT SUBM/ WIDTH TEST ORIF SIZE VENTS SUBM RATIO +

(in.)

(in.)

(ft) 5701-5 2.125 27.5*

1 6.0 0.32 l

5702-11 3.625 27.5 3

8.1 0.43 5801-10 2.50 15.88**

3 7.5 0.68 5806-2 3.0 15.88 3

5.0 0.45 5806-4 2.5 15.88 3

5.0 0.45 t

5806-6 3.625 15.88 3

7.5 0.68

+ = 0.47 ABWR VALUE; 0.35 MARKlli(TYP)VALUE

  • = FULL SCALE HORIZONTAL VENT l
    • = 1/3-AREA SCALED VENT l

t i

i I

I

MODEL vs PSTF TEST DATA COMPARISON RESULTS

SUMMARY

AT SELECTED TIME PSTF TIME POOL RISE (ft)

SWELL VELOCITY (ft/sec)

TEST (sec)

MODEL TEST MODEL/ TEST TEST MODEL MODEL/ TEST 5801-10 0.1 1.12 1.5 0.75 9.0 15.5 1.72 0.3 5.66 3.9 1.45 16.0 29.10 1.82 0.5 13.1 9.5 1.37 32.0 44.59 1.39 5806-2 0.1 0.85 0.8 1.06 10.0 11.86 1.19 0.3 4.43 3.0 1.48 20.0 22.97 1.15 0.5 10.3 7.0 1.47 26.0 35.64 1.37 q

h 5806-4 0.1 1.89 1.8 1.05 13.0 16.1 1.24 h

0.3 6.0 4.2 1.43 21.0 24.4 1.16 0.5 11.6 8.6 1.34 N

5806-6 0.1 1.85 1.8 1.03 13.0 21.63 1.66 0.3 7.24 5.8 1.25 25.0 32.05 1.28 0.5 15.2 12.8 1.19 40.0 47.20 1.18 5702-11 0.1 1.57 1.50 1.05 12.5 18.37 1.47 0.3 7.16 4.5 1.59 23.0 35.14 1.53 l

0.5 14.9 9.5 1.57 22.0 41.34 1.88 5701-5 0.1 0.98 1.0 0.98 5.0 16.5 3.3 0.3 6.12 2.0 3.06 6.25 32.28 5.16 0.5 13.0 3.75 3.47 8.75 34.43 3.93 l

l

i 1

E a

e rsta'ivr.T : miwim m1 wrai-r..... rm eTsi aTa Tws.. eTwi was e u p c!:fEr2fEur i

l souwoAny I !

r 10 b

W vawT em

__9 f

=

c I

vassa.

me' g

l O

,/

u.... !...

t l

t umn t

k J

L i

E.

Ommet n

s m.-

amance n

= - - - -

B i

"g_____

i

=

bE M!k veut cownsesewf Ma AME Containment Configuration FIGURE i

j 3

4 i

w amirw ca,.,

I MM PROPRIETARY INFORMmON sAsiocAt Standard Plant

%a Res 9 i

'I 1

13 A gaty PsPg g

t

~f l

'i a

P RSDUCSA go sp g

a

.e-12 A PIPS Rv9) f fn

\\ f%

(n I

~

L' >

I\\D

\\ ij M A PePE i

SLEVA N view' t

j t

is a pes trm 7

l es*

im,

/

i F--

2 1

r g

+

t

.n t

j i

\\,

f 1

arm E

?

\\.

\\

i n4= vsen

.i X. QUENCHER SCHEMATIC F

l 88 "

i Amendrocat 6 FIGURE 2 1

k 5

PSTS TEST DATA vs MODEL PREDICTION: TEST 5702-11 30 25

+ Pstr resr aarA N 20 s nooEL:

1008 P/ AREA 3

52

.a C

15 m

g m

+

J 10 g

~

5 0

O 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 TIME AFTER BREAK-(sec)

,~,

a 3

J PSTF TEST DATA vs MODEL PREDICTION: TEST 5806-4 16 14

.. rsrr rust cars II A NODEL:

100S r/ AREA 11 m

M 10 N

a da o

s m

6--

J 4

o 4

2 0

T 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 TIME AFTER BREAK (sec)

. ~. -.

ABWR LOCA POOL SWELL TRANSIENT 25 g

/

- - - - Loos rpan go

~,,.......

m m

m f

& 15 f.,-

a n

m tt)

W 10 i

a 5

, ^,a' o

0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 TIME AFTER VENT CLEARING (sec)

ABWR LOCA POOL SWELL VELOCITY TRANSIENT I

20 N

s 18 --

- - - - sees riamma ses riamma g

~

~

\\

B*~~

[

~

/

K

(

~

p

\\

a 8 12 c

k to

_x f.'

=

m f'

p x

e m

6

'. b Q4

[

E

' '~

2 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

TIME AFTER VENT CLEARING (sec)

I i

0=maniEhsus Chapasr

(

ABM PROPRIETARY DfFORMATION ming t'

Standard Plant cum a u.

TI,g" l

1 hj "f

g J

j l

IM. I h

{u*

glll:

r 2

I lill l

n ~ ~.e Ei i

l e

\\

we n.

a G

(

I Q

f t

p ll 1

1 j

\\

b $55

$g.

6Y O h

  • l l

\\PA 7 $y't - 7 f

I l

samtr4 cam 33.4 19 A= hat 6 FIGURE 7

i

i l-69-l l

59-49-39-I T1 29-l D

kPa 19-3 U

$i I

I I

$1 g

(x 2 5) g-r i

i i

n f

~

~

1 l

\\

l I

i

'l

@ 4 [ /

-50 B

9.4 9,8 1.2 1.6 2

IIE(sec.)

APsw R Typical Pressure Fluctuation by CO

3 Typical Pressure Fluctuation by CO-MarkIII i'

8 --

l

[

[

l I

l I

I 6--

.N T1 4

O 6

. i C

m 2--

(p oq h

h h

h L-g 3

p.,

_4 M

d d

M k

L -

1 I

I l

l l:

l l

l

-8

-25.917:

26.417-26.917

-27.417 27.917 28.417 28.917 29.417

.29.917 TIME AFTER INITIATION OF BLOWDOWN (sec) w---.my,m-ec.h-m,,,.,,c...n,.e,

.,r w e e +

o<-a-g.-m-w..,-.b,-+-.~,4

.--,4-----.-

  • g.-*,,--.-...ew.vv.

---we.,

r.-~

-.m,--

.,-4...~u..,

....w.

+~v-

- + < - + -.

+..-w

.aw..,-

, a s-O ABM enorairTARY INFOENADON Q**

r Standmed Plant o,= m

.,r-5 o

IMb 5

] *g L

gt,-ln i

(lum P and i

ssss n

.=

s

$5]

te l

>,i:'

l

(

'6 l

.IJg' il i

d' I

NTieiAFeasi&Es?.:

s v

_s 1

rs TzsTrAc Lrry 38 4-20 h6 FIGURE 10

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPR1EZARY INFORMATION CLASS III t

M

=m v,

cn c-g

-C 5

A 8

d W

W m

i mE E

_5

=5hl E

E E :, e e

its a

da jij

_a 5555 5

5 Wx m

_8 u

m

- %m = 5 8 W

m w-m M=b c

=m 8

d

_MU 5

x s

6

.=

3

~

o

_m m g

1 d53 "a

u 5

3 c

3 58 R

md m

a m*

3 E

a M

R A9 u

s.! g d e

o 5

A*sW o

d

~

3oW 8

gag-

=

3m d 1:

E o

i a

MM g

E

=-

-R

_S m

die

  • m aanY m

m

_e mn o

.~

4 8

i e

i i

6 e

i e

4 in j

=

m o

e e

=

m o

a

=

c e

om i

i i

I

(;sd) 3HOSS3Hd i

i F i C, U R E 11 i

i

{

m, s

do dw s k t c -

Respon3c.

subs sek to a s. 2.1. 2. 2, c, n i

A m_

SUBJECT:

SSAR 6.2.1.2.2: DESIGN FE.ATURES --

Para (2): Reactor Shield Annulus

REFERENCES:

1.

GE/NRC Meeting in San Jose,4/14/93.

2.

GE Transmittal of 1/22/93, Insert B to the subject item.

The following paragraphs provide clarification and answers to the staff questions (

noted in Reference 1) on the material transmitted in Reference 2. Item numbers below correspond to those in Reference 1.

  1. 1. "Several high energy lines" High energy lines which connect to the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) at the vessel nozzle safe end are:

(a)*

Steam outlet nozzle (4),

(b)

Feedwater and CUW inlet nozzle (6),

(c)

SD outlet nozzle (2),

(d)

HPCF & SLC inlet nozzle (2),

(e)

LPFL & SD inlet nozzle (2),

(f)

SD & CUW outlet nozzle (1),

No main steam line break inside RPV and the reactor shield wall (RSW) annulus is expected, because the steam outlet nozzle safe end connection to the main steam line is outside the annulus region.

  1. 2. DBA Break Definition The criterion for defining the DBA break size was based on mass and energy-blowdown rate into the annulus due to an instantaneous double-ended break The break type resulting in maximum mass and energy blowdown rate was defined as the "DBA Break".

r-In earlier annulus pressrization analyses (with the unextende shield wall), a break size of 0.06 sq meter at the FWL inlet nozzle was the limiting break area producing maximum mass and energy release rate. During later part of the ABWR design, RHR shutdown suction nozzle size was increased, which resulted in break flow area incteasing from 0.047 to 0.075 sq meter. As a result of this increase in break area, break at the RHR SD suction nozzle, which results in flow area greater than that for the FWL break case, became the DB A break for the current RPV and RSW annulus (with the extended shield wall) presrurization analyses.

  1. 3. Flow Areg Yes, the flow area mentiond in Reference 2 refers to the venting area from the RPV and RSW annulus region into the drywell region. See Figure --. The total flow area, as noted in Reference 2, comprised of i) clearance area corresponding to the 0.1 m clearance between top of the shield wall and containment top slab, and li) the area of penetration door openings.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20036A060&oldid=4573509"