ML20083R423
| ML20083R423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200004 |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1995 |
| From: | Quinn J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Quay T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| MFN-077-95, MFN-77-95, NUDOCS 9505300008 | |
| Download: ML20083R423 (7) | |
Text
'
O GENuclearEnergy
" 8 f *loI'. Es,g,g,e,,c g p m s
c May 24,1995 MFN 077-95 Docket STN 52-004 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 i
Attention: Theodore E. Quay, Director Standardization Project Directorate
Subject:
SHWR, GIRAFFE SYSTEMS INTERACTION TEST CHANGES
Reference:
Phonecon, GE/NRC, GIRAFFE SYSTEMS INTERACTION TEST, l
May 15,1995 During the Referenced telephone call changes were agreed to, in principal, for the GIRAFFE Systems Interaction Tests, pending agreement with Toshiba. Toshiba has agreed to the changes.
The attachment to this letter is markups of subsection A.3.1.7, GIRAFFE / SIT (Systems Interaction Test) and Tables A.3-21 and A.3-23 of the SBWR Test and Analysis Program Description, NED-32391 Revision B, which describe the changes agreed to.
If you have any questions regarding the changes, please call J. D. (Jack) Duncan of our staff on (408) 925-6947.
Sincerely, h
W, James E. Quinn, Projects Manager LMR and SBWR Programs
Attachment:
Markups of Subsection A.3.1.7 and Tables A.3-21 and A.3-23 of NED-32391 Revision B.
cc:
Document Control Desk (NRC)
Original paper copy P. A. Boehnert (NRC/ACRS)
(2 paper copies w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)
- 1. Catton (ACRS)
(1 paper col.y w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)
A. Drozd (NRC)
(1 paper copy w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)
M. Herzog (NRC)
(1 paper copy w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)
A. E. Levin (NRC)
(1 paper copy w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)
D. McPherson (NRC)
(1 paper copy w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)
S. Q. Ninh (NRC)
(2 paper copies w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)
J. II. Wilson (NRC)
(1 paper copy w'att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)
D 9505300000 950524 i
PDR ADOCK 05200004 A
1 l,
NEDO-32391, Revision B i
nitrogen used in Test H1 is replaced with helium to obtain ne-to-one comparison of PCC system performance in the presence of lighter-than-steam and. vier-than-steam noncondensibles. Tests H3 and H4 are dependent upon the assumption of 1 metal water reaction to generate hydrogen over a one hour period. Due to the continuous p ging of gases from the drywell to the wetwell during the time of hydrogen generation, the equili6rium concentration of hydrogen in the drywell is substantially less than would occur if all of hydrogen were generated instantaneously. The j
20% helium partial pressure initial condition r Test H3 is based on this equilibrium value. Thus, i
Test H3 does not utilize a helium mass equivalent to hydrogen from a 100% metal water reaction in a SBWR, but about a fifth of that value.
A.3.1.6.5 TRACG Analysi Plans All tests in the GIRAFFF/Hel' H-series will have TRACG analysis performed on a blind post test basis. Although the tes will be performed prior to TRACG analysis, the analyst will have no knowledge of the test resdits while the analysis is being performed. Tests T1 and T2 will have TRACG analysis performed on a post-test basis.
/
A. 3.1. 7 GIRAFFFJSIT (Systems Interaction Test)
A. 3.1.7.1 Test Description Overview The GIRAFFFJSIT (System Interaction Tests) will be performed by the Toshiba Corporation at their Nuclear Engineering Laboratory in Kawasaki City, Japan. Test dr.ta will be obtained for TRACG qualification during the late blowdown /early GDCS phase of liquid line breaks.
The facility configuration is discussed in Subsection A.3.1.6.1 and is shown schematically in Figure A.3-18, with the addition of a second heat exchanger so that both the PCC and IC can be in operation simultaneously. The configuration of the IC is similar to the PCC unit shown in Figure A.3-19.
The GIRAFFFJSIT tests will be performed in accordance with Japanese Quality Assurance Standard JEAG-4101,1990 (Reference 58). Review of this standard against the requirements of ANSI /ASME NQA-1 has shown that the essential elements of NQA-1 are met by this standard.
Therefore, results from the GIRAFFFJSIT test program are appropriate for use as design basis data.
Instrumentation Instrumentation utilized in the GIRAFFF/ SIT test program is similar to that used in earlier GIRAFFE tests. (See Subsection A.3.1.6.1.)
Method GIRAFFF/ SIT testing follows a methodology very similar to that used in PANDA and GIRAFFE / Helium. Once the initial conditions for a given test have been established, all control (except for the decay of RPV power and possibly the microheater power) will be terminated. The GIRAFFE RPV and containment will be allowed to fm.uion without operator intervention, b)O hh5 Y
r NEDO-32391, Revision B
/
mirroring the SSAR assumptions for the SBWR. Details will be i&ntified in the Test Plan and Procedure for these tests.
A.3.1.7.2 Test Objectives In the initial GE evaluation, no need for these tests was identified. However on page 16 of the TAPD Draft Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) the NRC staff notes, "While GE considers MSLBs to be the limiting accident in terms of containment performance, both GDCS line breaks and bottom dmin line (BDL) breaks are more limiting m terms of reactor vessel response, especially minimum water level. The staff has, therefore concluded that additional integral systems tests are required as part of the design certification test program for the SBWR. The tests should be performed in an appropriately scaled facility that (a) represents the current design of the SBWR; (b) has the capability of simulating a range of design basis events, including GDCS line breaks and BDL breaks; and (c) has sufficient power and pressure capability to represent these events prior to the initiation of GDCS injection." The GIRAFFE facility meets these criteria.
Based on the above, the test objective of the GIRAFFE / SIT Test Program is:
Provide a data base to confirm the adequacy of TRACG to predict the SBWR ECCS performance during the late blowdown /early GDCS phase of a LOCA, with specific focus on potential systems interaction eifects. (IntegralSystems Tests)
A. 3.1. 7. 3 Test Matrix and Data Analysis th re c on e
/
A series of f r transient systems tests is lanned to provide an integral systems database for potential systems mteraction effects in the la blowdown /early GDCS period. All four tests are liquid breaks:
GDCS line breaks and bottom drain line breaks. Tests will be performed with and without the IC and PCC in operation, and two different single failures are considered.
The test matrix def' ming the four tests is given in Table A.3-21. Prelimmary initial conditions for the base case, Test GSI, are given in Table A.3-22.
The initial conditions for all tests approximate SBWR conditions 10 minutes post-LOCA, based on the breaks and equipment operations listed in Table A.3-21. All tests will mn for approximately two hours. Containment related parameters will be taken from the appropriate SBWR TRACG LOCA case at the time RPV pressure is 1.034 mPa (150 psia).
i The RPV collapsed water level at the start of the test will be detennined by using the TRACG GIRAFFE model. Since GIRAFFE is not an exact " scale model" of the SBWR, it will not be practical to have the water / steam distribution in GIRAFFE be the same as in SBWR. For example, the GIRAFFE RPV lower plenum is shorter than the SBWR lower plenum. Additionally, the GIRAFFE RPV material is thinner, and begins the LOCA simulation at a lower temperature than the SBWR. As a result, a smaller amount of energy is transferred to the RPV lower plenum fluid a GIRAFFE. Methods to better simulate this energy addition are being investigated, and may
' effect the final definition of the initial RPV water level.
Additional details on the initial conditions for the other GIRAFFE / SIT tests will be included in the Test Plan and Procedure.
The following provides the purpose and additional information on each GIRAFFE / SIT test:
l A-29
l NEDO-32391, Revision B 5
l Test GSI is the base case test, a GDCS line break, with DPV failure as the single failure and neither the PCCS, nor the IC, in operation. This test has initial conditions similar to GIST Test C01A, and may be compared with GIST C01A to evaluate the I
effects of configuration distortions in GIST and potential GDCS contamment system perfonnanceingpqns as h er M l.,.4 ca pt' t W I 't b D ^ M # " D Test GS2 ishbottonwiraie unc bicok, otherwise4iM!me Test-GSrt. Test GS2 results l
will be compared to those of Test GSlyte dchaine the effects-of4rci location-orr-minimumwater-level Test-GS2-will[-,c bc compared 4o GIST-Test A014th =:-
l bA manner as-TesterGSI-end-G01A fer;
-(,cabaof wrth &q & 5 l
mtwec, vw vsfoe m Tc w Pcc.
)
Test GS3 is zios a bottom drain line break wi DPV failure,but f5r this test both the l
PCCS and IC will be functioning. Data from test GS3 will be comped dMy ith-l pp wrd Tst CS2-foridentification of potential systems interactions associated with the IC and l
PCCwA bcdie cf ro m Iim bre AwA4f ato,
l Test GS4 is a GDCS line break, with the single failure being a GDCS valve failure m one of the other GDCS injection lines. Arda-Tc: CO,60th the PCC and IC will be in l
operation. This condition is expected to provide the slowest rate of recovery of water level. Data from test GS4 can be compared to test GS1 to identify potential interactions with the IC and PCC even though the single failures are different.
GIRAFFE / SIT Tests GS1 though GS4 provide a data base for TRACG qualification that meets the GIRAFFE / SIT test objective.
1
(
)
A.3.1.7.4 Justification of Test Conditions Choice of the Base Case Test Test GSI, the base case test for this series, had conditions defined that resulted in the lowest predicted chimney water level, considering the various break locations, sizes, and single failure combinations. Additionally, the commonality of conditions between this case and that of GIST Test C01A allows a comparison between the GIST and GIRAFFE simulations. The differences between the GIST and GIRAFFE test configurations allow an assessment of the effect of containment on GDCS performance.
Other Tests The other test cases were defined with the objective of identifying systems interactions, should they occur. Since the primary focus of this testing is GDCS performance, the RPV water levelis the figure of merit in these investigations. TRACG predictions for several break locations, single failures, and IC/PCC operation combinations were performed. The additional tests were chosen based on these results, which are presented in Table A.3-23.
A.3.1.7.S TRACG Analysis Plan All four transient tests in the GIRAFFE / SIT ser;es will have TRACG analysis performed on a blind post test basis. Although the tests will be performed prior to the TRACG analysis, the analyst will have no knowledge of the test results while the analysis is being performed.
l A-30 J
L_4Mh "T
..... w.o, -
L NEDO-32391, Revision B Exceptions will be information needed to conduct the analysis such as actual initial conditions, decay power and microheater power dudng the test. The assessment of TRACG's adequacy will be based on the ability to predict chunney and downcomer water level.
f, l
\\
(
I A.3.1.8 Other Analyses lanned The previous sections has discussed the major SBWR-unique test programs and defined the
(
test conditions to be analyzed w th TRACG.
This section will give a brief o rview of these tests and the anticipated corresponding TRACG l
an.dyses.
1 l
A.3.1. 8.1 1/6 Scale Bort Mixing Test l
GE-NE has performed a s t of boron mixmg injection tests for BWIUS and BWR/6 geometries. These tests were repo ed in Reference 28. The tests were performed in a 1/6 scale three-dimensional model of a 218 i. reactor pressure vessel, and used the High Pressure Core l
Spray (IIPCS) spargers as the p injection location of the simulated boron solution. Using scaled boron injection rates of either 00 or 86 gpm, with and without HPCS flow, the parametric effects on mixing were examined in the upper plenum and core bypass regions. Two altemate injecdon locations were also examine.
Standby Liquid Controlinjectio locations are different in the SBWR from previous product lines, due primarily to the natural c' ulation recirculation feature of the SBWR. The SBWR
)
utilizes direct injection into the core re ion through the shroud at 16 locations.
j A series of TRACG predictions f the BWR/5-6 data is planned. Specific test cases to be I
l analyzed have not yet been identified.
' mary data comparisons will be made against data for the mixing cochicient, which is defined the concentration of injected solutien at the measured i
location divided by the concentration tha would be present if the injected solution were uniformly mixed with the entire vessel inventory.
mparisons will be made at several locations.
l l
l A. 3.1. 8. 2 CRIEPI Natural Cire lation Thermal-hydraulic Test Facility The CRIEPI test facility is a paralle channel test facility intended to study the stability l
charactedstics of a natural circulation loop d ring startup conditions. The two parallel channels are 1.79m high and are equipped with heaters vith a maximum power input of 64 kW each. At the i
channel exit, there is an adiabatic chimney hich is 5.7m high. The loop has a separator, a condenser and a subcooler which are used t retum the condensed steam to the downcomer. A preheater with a capacity of 150 kW controls t e inlet temperature to the channels. Tests have been run at low pressure to simulate low pressure l p startup. Oscillations have been observed under some conditions and a str.bility map has been c cated for the test loop.
l l
l A-31
m.,
., rs -----
p t
NEDO-32391, Revision B l
Table A.3 20 GIRAFFF1IIellum Test TJ/ nitial Conditions Parameter Value /
Tolerance 1
l RPV Pressure (kPa) 267 16 kPa l
l l
Initial Heater Power (kW) 41+ heat loss co pensation 1Kw j
l RPV Collapsed Water Level (m)*
1.2 0.150 m l
Drywell Pressure (kPa) 266 14 kPa l
l Drywell Nitrogen Pressure (kPa) 38 14 kPa l
Wetwell Pressure (kPa) 266 14 kPa l
Wetwell Nitrogen Pressure (kPa) 212 14 kPa j
l GDCS Gas Space Pressure (kPa) 266 14 kPa l
l GDCS Nitrogen Pressure (kPa) 246 14 kPa l
Suppression Pool Temperature (K) 352 2K
{
l l
PCC Pool Temperature (K) 373 12 K l
GDCS Pool Temperature (K) 333 12 K t
l GDCS Pool Level (m) l l
Suppression Pool Level * (
3.2 0.075 m l
PCC Collapsed Water Level *(m) 23.2 10.075 m l
PCC Vent Line Subme ence (m) 0.90 i0 075 m y
l
- Referenced to th kAF.
t GDCS pool 1 el should be positioned in hydrostatic equilibrium witn the RPV level (including an approprial adjustmer.t for temperature difference.
l Table A.3-21 GIRAFFFJSIT Test Matrix l
Test Break Single Failure IC/PCCS on?
GSI GDL DPV No l
-GSS DDL DPV' Fu QS 2.
40t-p Pv hc5 GS3 BDL DPV Yes l
GS4 GDL GDCS Yes j
t GDL = Gravity Drain Line BDL = Bottom Drain Line DPV = Depressurization Valve GDCS = GDCS Injection Valve A-67
I NEDO-32391, Revision B bible A3-22 Test GS1 Initial Conditions Pararneter Value Tolerance RPV Pressure (kPa) 1034 20 RPV Collapsed Water Level
-2.34 0.15 (m)*
Initial Heater Power (kW) 68+ heat loss compensation 1
Drywell Total Pressure (kPa) 289 4
f Drywell Steam Partial Pressure 178 4
(kPa)
Wetwell Total Pressure (kPa) 254 4
Suppression Pool Temperature 333 2
(K)
PCC Pool Temperature (K) 373 2
GDCS Pool Temperature (K) 319 2
GDCS Pool Level (m)*
16.2 0.075
- Referenced to Top of Active Fuel (TAF).
Table AJ-23 Basis for GIRAFFF/ SIT Test Conditions Option IC/PCC Objective Break Failure Operation Test ID Worst Break / Single Failure GDL DPV No GSI Combination gpt Benefit ofIC/PCC 49b DPV
-Ves No GS8 (
diDl 'R BBb DPV W /e2; GS2 Slow Water Level Recovery GDL GDCS Yes GS4 Fast WaterLevelRecovery -B DL- -
DRV
--No CS2 -
BDL DPV Yes GS3 Y
Gesarepresentingedifferent-
-BDL DPV Ne ---
-GS2-0 break-tharrworstbreak-Case showing GDCS void
-BDL DPV
-No GS2 quenching and break flow GDL DPV No GS1 depressurizing drywell A-68
-