ML20092N547

Evaluation of Paint & Insulation Debris Effects on Containment Emergency Sump Performance

ML20092N547
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/30/1984
From:	GIBBS & HILL, INC. (SUBS. OF DRAVO CORP.)
To:
Shared Package
ML20092N544	List: ML20092N547 TXX-4210, Forwards Evaluation of Paint & Insulation Debris Effects on Containment Emergency Sump Performance, Per Discussion at 840607 Meeting.Analyses Indicate That Protective Coating Inside Containment Need Not Be safety-related
References
NUDOCS 8407030265
Download: ML20092N547 (149)

Text

. .

Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 1 Report Evaluation of Paint and insulation Debris Effects on Containment Emergency Sump Performance June 1984 l

Gibbs & Hill, Inc.

Engineers, Designers. Constructors

! New York, New York 8407030265 840629 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR

Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 1 l

Report Evaluation of Paint and insulation Debris Effects on Containment Emergency Sump Performance June 1984 i

Gibbs & Hill, Inc.

Engineers, Designers, Constructors New York, New York

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1. Section 8 is contributed by Ebasco Services Inc.

2. Appendix 1 is contributed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

e e

(i) i 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS EVALUATION OF PAINT AND INSULATION DEBRIS EFFECTS ON CONTAINMENT EMERGENCY SUMP PERFORMANCE

-1.0 PURPOSE 2.0

SUMMARY

3.0 SAFETY IMPACT OF POSTULATED PAINT FAILURE 3.1 Paint Characteristics

,. 3.2 Potential Effects of Paint on Engineered Safeguard Performance 4.0 ' SUMP PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 4.1 Sump Performance 5.0- WATER-VELOCITIES 5.1 Sources of Water

~

5.2 Water Levels at Sump Elevation 5.3 Velocities at Upper Elevation F 5.4 Water Velocity at the' Sump Elevation 6.0 PAINT DEBRIS GENERATION AND TRANSPORT 6.1 Paint Debris Generation

.6.2 Paint Transport 7.0 INSULATION DEBRIS GENERATION 7.1 Types of Insulation 7.2 Insulation = Debris Generation 7.3 Insulation Transport i

(ii)

I

- . - . , . -- . , . , - . - - . - . . . . . ~ . - - - , - - . . , . - . . - , -

8.0 NEAR SUMP EFFECTS 8.1 Motion of Paint Fragments Through

. the Pool of Water 8.2 Analysis of Potential for Sump Clogging 9.0 DEBRIS EFFECTS ON EMERGENCY SUMPS REFERENCES APPENDIX-1 (iii)

LIST OF TABLES

-Table No. Title 3.1-1 Coating Systems at CPSES 3.1-2 Characteristics of Coatings 4.1-1 Sump Design Parameters 4.1-2 Pump NPSH 4.1-3 Summary of Test Data for Sump Performance 5.1-1 Water Inventory and Levels 5.3 Containment Spray Distributio.s 5.3-2 Calculation of Velocities (Two Spray Trains) 5.3-3 Calculation of Velocities (One Spray Train) 5.4-1 Containment Spray and RHR/SI Flows 5.4-2 Spray Flow Contribution (One Train)

Low Water Level (El. 814.8 Ft.)

5.4-3 RHR/SI Flow Contribution (One-Train)

Low Water Level (El. 814.8 Ft.)

5.4-4 Spray Flow Contribution (Two Trains)

Low Water Level (El. 814.8 Ft.)

5.4-5 RHR/SI Flow Contribution (Two Trains)

Low Water. Level (El. 814.8 Ft.)

5.4-6 Spray Flow Contribution (One Train)

High Water Level (El. 817.5 Ft.)

5.4-7 RHR/SI Flow Contribution (One Train)

High Water Level (El. 817.5 Ft.)

5.4-8 Spray Flow Contribution (Two Trains)

High Water Level (El. 817.5 Ft.)

5.4-9

• RHR/SI Flow Contribution (Two Trains)

High Water Level (El. 817.5 Ft.)

(iv)

Table No. Title 5.4-10 Total Velocity - One Train, Low Level 5.4-11 Total Velocity - Two Trains, Low Level 5.4-12 Total Velocity - One Train, High Level 5.4-13 Total Velocity - Two Trains, High Level 5.4-14 Sensitivity Analysis - Two Trains vs.

Water Level 6.1-1 Quantities of Paint in Containment 6.2-1 Transport Velocity Summary Paint Thickness = 10 mils 6.2-2 Transport Velocity Summary Paint Thickness = 5 mils 6.2-3 Transport Velocity Summary Paint Thickness = 3 mils 6.2-4 Transport Velocity Summary Paint Thickness = 10 mils 6.2-5 Transport Velocity Summary Paint Thickness = 5 mils 6.2-6 Transport Velocity Summary Paint Thickness = 3 mils 6.2-7 Transport Velocity Summary Paint Thickness = 10 mils 6.2-8 Transport Velocity Summary Paint Thickness = 5 mils I

6.2-9 Transport Velocity Summary Paint Thickness = 3 mils 6.2-10 Transport Velocity Summary Drag Coefficient = 1.5 6.2-11 Transport Velocity Summary Drag Coefficient = 1.2 6.2-12 Transport Velocity Summary Drag Coefficient = 0.9 (v)

. Table No. Title 6.2-13 Transport Velocity Summary Drag Coefficient = 0.7 6.2-14 . Transport Velocity Summary Friction Coefficient Dynamic = 0.1

.6.2-15 Transport. Velocity Summary Friction Coefficient Dynamic = 0.2 6.2.-16 Transport Velocity Summary Friction Coefficient Dynamic = 0.3 6.2-17. Transport Velocity Summary Friction Coefficient Dynamic = 0.5 6.2-18 -Transport Velocity Summary Friction Coefficient Dynamic = 0.6 6.2-19 Transport Velocity Summary Concrete Coatings Paint Thickness = 20 mils 6.2-20 Transport Velocity Summary Concrete Coatings Paint Thickness = 30 mils 6.2-21 Transport Velocity Summary Sand Particles 6.2-22 Transport Velocity Summary Zinc Dust Particles 6.2-23 Summary of Critical Transport Velocities for Paint Particles 6.2-24 Perimeters of Openings ~on Upper Elevations 6.2-25 Coatinge Contribution from Upper Elevations 7.1-1 Insulation Panel Dimensions 7.2-1 Fibrous Insulation Take Off

! Drawing No. 2323-M1-0507 7.2-2 Fibrous Insulation Take Off Drawing No. 2323-M1-0511 l

(vi)

Table No. Title 7.2-3 Fibrous Insulation Take Off Drawing No. 2323-M1-0511-01 7.2-4 Fibrous Insulation Take Off Drawing No. 2323-M1-0513 7.2-5 Fibrous insulation Take Off Drawing No. 2323-M1-0513-01 7.2-6 Metallic Insulation Damage from R.C. Loop Pipe Break Steam Generator Compt. No. 4 7.2-7 Metallic Insulation Damage from 10" R.C. Pipe Break Steam Gen. Cempt. No. 4 7.2-8 Reflective Metallic Insulation Located Within 7 Pipe Dia.

of Jet rrom Pipe Breack 756 LWR 7.3-1 Water Velocities in Channels Approaching the Sumps 7.3-2 Transport and Blockage Test Results 9-1 Spray and RHR Pump NPSH (vii)

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title 3.2-1 Recirculation Flow Path 3.2-2 Schematic.of Sump Containment Spray.and RHR/SI~ Connections 5.3-1 -Containment Spray Zones 5.3-2 Free Fall Spillway 5.4-1 Containment Channel Locations

^

5.4.2 RHR/SI Flow Path 5.4.3' Spray Flow Path 5.4-4 Flow Resistance Map Sub-Channel Locations 5.4-5' cross Section Locations 5.4 Containment Building Steam Generator Compartment No. 4 Cross section SA 5.4-7 Containment. Building Steam Generator Compartment No. 4 Cross Section SC 5.4-8 Containment Building Corridor Cross Section-4B 5.4.9 Network Diagram RHR/SI System

-5.4.10- Network Diagram - Spray

-6.2-1 Tumble Transport Model 6.2-2 Slide Transport Model 6.2-3 Areas That Exceed Critical Velocity at El. 808' - 0" Low Water Level Two Trains Operating 6.2-4 Areas That Exceed Critical Velocity at El. 808'- 0" High Water Level Two Trains Operating 7.1-1 Reflective Metallic Insulation Assembly (viii)

Figure No. Title 7.1-2 Cross-Section of Insulation Assembly 7.1-3 Metallic Insulation Panel 7.2.1 Reactor Coolant Loop No. 4 Break Points and Restraint Location 7.2.2 Safety Injection System Break Point and Restraint Location 7.2-3 Schematic Drawing of Reflective Metallic Insulation Unit for 10-Inch Pipe 8.1-1 Chip Motion With Constant Angle 8.1-2 Constant Angle Analysis Results 8.1-3 Oscillatory Motion of Paint Fragment 8.2-1 Sump Geometry 9-l'- Paint Area vs. Percent. Blocked Screen (ix)

1.O. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to determine if the debris resulting from the postulated failure of paint and insulation inside the CPSES Unit 1 containment due to a LOCA will adversely offect performance of the containment emergency sumps and those cngineered safeguards systems drawing suction therefrom.

1-1

P 2.0

SUMMARY

J The detailed analysis of potential effects of coatings failure on the performance of all relevant plant safety systems indicated that the single most significant aspect of postulated coating failure will be the potential for blockage of the emergency sump screens by paint and insulation debris. The mechanism for and effect of such blockage on emergency sump performance are evaluated in detail in this report. The general methodology and logic used for determining the potential sump blockage are based on NUREG/CR-2791, NUREG/CR-3616 and NUREG-0897, Revision 1 (Draft).

The following step-by-step approach was used to evaluate the sump screen blockage effects. First, the water velocities inside the containment in each zone of the containment were determined. &

Next, the quantities of paint and insulation debris in each zone 1 of the containment were calculated. The calculations determined that there is no potential for insulation debris to reach the sumps. Finally, the transport velocities for paint particles in -

each zone were calculated, and the quantity of paint transported to the sump screen was calculated.

Based on the conservatively assumed quantity of paint debris that could reach the sump screen, the screen blockage and pressure drops were evaluated. The analysis determined that about 90,000 sq ft (about 300 cu ft) of paint could reach the vicinity of the sump screen through mechanisms derived from the above NUREGs, and cause partial blockage. The extent of screen blockage by paint debris was calculated to be 35 to 50 percent of the screen area, well within the design basis for sump performance. The conclusion of the analysis is that this amount of screen blockage cannot cause any impact on plant safety.

To supplement the above methodology, other possible near sump effects were analyzed, assuming the various mechanisms for sump screen blockage. All these mechanisms evaluate paint particles impinging on the screen before settling to the floor of the containment. The analysis determined that paint debris within approximately ten feet of ten feet of the screen has the potential to impinge on the screen and be retained on the screen by flow forces, thereby blocking the screen. Using highly conservative assumptions, it was determined that up to 94 percent of the screen could be blocked. The sump blockage discussed in the previous paragraph and blockage due to the near sump effects discussed here are not additive. However, even in this worst possible case, the required level of sump performance would be unimpaired.

In addition to sump screen blockage, secondary effects of paint failure were analyzed. Most of such effects are only likely if -

there are very fine particles of paint debris which pass through the screen. The analysis of such effects leads to the conclusion that blockage of narrow passages in containment spray and RHR/SI

t will not occur becau'se these systems are designed to handle particles less than 1/8 inch in size. Further, impacts of very fine particles in the reactor systems are acceptable in that no significant buildup of fines in the core will occur.

The ECCS and its critical operating components were analyzed for potential erosion or corrosion degradation due to the postulated ingestion of zine into the ECCS. The conclusion resulting from this evaluation and the related containment paint chemical analysis was that no significant erosion or corrosion damage to the ECCS or to its critical components would occur. No deleterious effects are postulated in the reactor core for the material concentrations assumed in this evaluation.

In addition, the analysis led to the conclusion that the design basis containment hydrogen generation will not increase because the original estimates of hydrogen generation in the FSAR conservatively assume that all zine in the coatings react to produce hydrogen.

Finally, the analysis led to the conclusion that any failed paint would not tend to become airborne. In any event, the analysis reflected that any paint that did become airborne would have no adverse effects on plant filter systems.

..; + . ,,

s c.

'& - L. -

, -+

3.0 SAFETY IMPACT OF POSTULATED PAINT FAILURE ,,'

9 _.-

3.1 Paint Characteristics a J ing The major coating systems (paint) used inside the containment and 3 .

their average DFT (dry film thicknesses) are presented in .-. ,

Table 3.1-1. -'

The steel coatings are manufactured by Carboline Co.; the [~.r .

concrete coatings are manufactured by Imperial Professional ?c' -

Coating Corporation, Inc. , , 1. '

.s -

Approximately 285',000 sq.ft. of concrete and 333,000 sq.ft. of I ':.S ' ' .

steel are coated. The Carbozinc 11 is a self-curing zinc-filled lJ.!

inorganic coating, containing about 80% wt. solids, with a  ? v4:

specific gravity of 4.0. The Phenoline 305 is a modified ~i. - -

phenolic coating, containing about 81% wt. solids, with a 'd

.~ - 1 specific gravity of 1.5. The Nutec 11 is a water-based epoxy . (, .

coating, containing about 78% vol. solids, with a specific gravity of 1.8. Nutec 11S is the same as Nutec 11 except that it  ? 8 ..~ 9 ~

contains 51% wt.30-140 mesh sand, and has a specific gravity of  ?./>

1.8. Reactic 1201 is a polyamide epoxy coating, containing about - ;f: "

73% wt. solids, with a specific gravity of 1.5. .

The Nutec 11S is used as a surfacer for concrete. Nutec 11 and. M Reactic 1201 are used as top coats. j?}.}'

All of these , coatings have successfully passed the DBA test "U , ; ,

conforming to ANSI N101.2-1972, " Protective Coatings (Paints) for 7. c '

Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities." Thus, these s. .

coatings can withstand the environmental conditions, such as, . .\ ?

temperatures, pressures, chemical and radiation levels during a l'",.

LOCA. _. .

m-

. l. . 'E

.:s 3 p  % ,h l,.* .

' . , :.. ;T .

e .

.t" _

ph&

F .  :

3-1  ; li ~

=

.'s ,

- ..e

. . . . . ~ '

Paint impurities for the . steel coatings are presented in Table 3.1-2.

Decomposition temperatures for all.the containment coatings are 2 350 F. They are thermally stable for continuous exposure at 200 F. Carbozine is thermally stable for continuous exposure at 750 F. The characteristics of all coating systems used at CPSES cre summa:ized in Table 3.1-2.

Paint Failure Modes Paint can fail by two general modes: chalking and 4 flaking / peeling. Chalking is loss of the paint film by powdering to small (micrometer-size) particles. Flaking / peeling is loss of the paint film by flakes of small (usually <one inch) particles.

Field and laboratory observations of the containment coatings used at Comanche Peak confirm that the failure modes are by flaking of small (1/8 - 1 inch) particles, except for the Carbozine 11. The Carbozine 11 failure mode is by chalking (powdering).

Other _ terminologies to explain coating failure used in the industry, such as blistering, intercoat delamination, cracking, undercutting (lifting of the paint f!1m by substrate corrosion),

- checking, mud-cracking, alligatoring, erosion, wrinkling, pinpoint rusting and- pitting, lead to either chalking or flaking / peeling.

Blistering, checking or mud-cracking can lead to failure by flaking / peeling of small size (< 1/2 inch) particles (" Good Painting Practice, Vol. 1, Stael Structures Painting Manual," ,

SSPC 1982, Chapter 23; ASTM D772-47, " Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Flaking (Scaling) of Exterior Paints," ASTM Vol. 06.01, 1984; ASTM E714-56, " Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints," ASTM Vol. 06.01, 1984; ASTM D660-44, " Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Checking of Exterior Paints," ASTM Vol 06.01, 1984).

1

+

e e

d 3-2 i

i r

,,~ wn.w,c -m--,,- g , ,--,,--.-mw,,,,,,-w_,-, ,,-wnm-, n-.,,- -.--n_-,_n--- ,,-,-e_,__

1 SPRAY HEADERS CoNTAIM M EMT 5~-

1--

< s C o

. , To R.C. . ,

h o '~-

, COLD LEGS N-

c. ._ _ s (__J c'

=

h a o

=

' i I f l.RHR POMP 2.CONTAIMMEMT SPRAY POMP TR AI M "A"

3. m

4. RHR PUMP

5. CONTAINMENT SPRAY PUMP TRAIN *lY g, n ,, n FIGURE 3. 2 - I  ;

RECIRCUL ATION FLOW PATH

TOF PROTECTIVE DECK NER . COARSE SCREEN (SS) 2 MESH.148 WIRE O.420 SQUARE OPENING

_ 67'-.6"10 (CONTAINMENT TRASH RACK i

\ 6"W X 3"H MATRIX I" DEEP X I/4" HIGH

[SS FLAT BARS FINE SCREEN (88) 1/4" TEST CONN y

[ FL. EL. 808'-0"

-e u ee,e

'.hI COAMING 6"HIGH

//

16,, PIPE ,

• )"* ,,

i,$ 8 X g/4"TK. S S PLAT r4 /

.w '-T-9 l~ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4; j -

i SUMP

_ S.: -i -m % ~~

r/________Ki4 y z.c ** .,

EL. 802'-0" 24" GUARD PIPE 2*-8.".

'TYP ~

CONTAINMENT EMERGENCY SUMP FIGURE 3. 2 - 2 SCHEMATIC OF SUMP CONTAINMENT SPRAY AhlD RHR/SI CONMECT'^.MS

s ..

g '.

5 TABLE 3.1-1 l <d COATING SYrTEMS AT CPSES .'[* --

y ,.y. } s Average i *~

Service Tm DFT Mils (1) [. .

3%

1. Steel'28:  ;# : . .

Primer Carbozine 11 3 -

Topcoat Phenoline 305 5 #'f . -

2. Concrete'8): ( c.' .,

Surfacer Nutec 11 S 20 -U'

• Topcoat Nutec 11 12 ,-[.J,  ;'

Reactic 1201 10

4. .

. e . .:.>

J, ' :

Notes: .,-_.

.u (2' Dry film thickness in mils (1 mil equals .001 inch) ~

'2' Manufactured by Carboline Co. y ,

~'

(8' Manufactured by Imperial Professional Coating Corporation.

.y .

. . . .->. J e _-

' h.

?;;*4 >,

a g ' '.[ , '

. , n . :*. A.

,. */-

'f. .. ?

...g. .

• ~.,,....

W

, E. ,,

.B:

m

- ', , i

, .4 ~ . :

y , ._

,. + .-

.: e.

.. , k'

' ?? "

s- I

. y. ,..i

= y 0

. 'r a. L 5 g .

h e s

TABLE 3.1-2 CHARACTERISTICS OF COATINGS Coating Type Carbozine Phenoline Nutec Reactic Characteristic 11 305 11S & 11 1201

1. Chemical:

Solids (wt %) 80-85 81 78 73 Chlorides (ppm) 70-80 170-180 NA NA Halogens (ppm) 70-80 850-900 NA NA Lead (ppm) 1000 (max) NA NA NA

2. Physical:

Specific Gravity 4.0 1.5 1.6-2.0 1.5 Thermal Stability (*F) 750 >200 >200 >200 Decomposition (*F) >750 >350 >350 >350 NA - not available

. - - - , - - - , - , - .,.--e . - - ,.. .-, . - . , - - - - , , - - - - , , , , - - . , . - . , , - - , ,

i 3.2 Potential Effects of Paint on Engineered Safeguards Performance -

The potential effects of coatings failure on performance of plant engineered safeguards systems are evaluated in this report. Some of the area of likely concern are:

• Blockage of containment emergency sumps a Blockage of containment spray and RHR/SI system flow passages

• Containment hydrogen generation

• Blockage of filters in containment air handling systems.

• Fouling of heat transfer surfaces This report addresses each of these concerns and evaluates the impact on the plant safety systems.

Following a LOCA, the safety injection and RHR systems provide cooling water to the reactor core. The water supplied to the core spills on the containment floor. The containment spray system sprays water into,the containment through nozzles in the dome of the containment and underneath the slabs of the major floors to remove heat and iodine from the containment atmosphere.

Initially, both of these systems take water from the refueling water storage tank. When the refueling water storage tank contents are depleted, these systems are switched to recirculate water which has accumulated on the lowest level of the containment. Figure 3.2-1 shows, in simplified form, the flow path for these systems during recirculation.

The recirculation inlets to the RHR/SI and containment spray systems are protected by sump screens in the containment as shown in Figure 3.2-2. These screens comprise trash racks, coarse screens and fine screens.

The containment spray nozzles contain orifices 3/8" in diameter.

The recirculation screens are sized to exclude particles larger than 1/8" diameter to avoid plugging of the spray no: les. The remainder of the containment spray system is designed to accommodate 1/8" particles. For example, the containment spray pumps can pass such particles without clogging. The safety injection and RHR systems can also pass 1/8" particles, without clogging.

It is apparent that the screens might be blocked by large debris particles. Failed paint must be counted as a potential type of debris which could affect the screens.

3-3

o Particles smaller than 1/8" can enter the systems and can cause other effects, such as erosion and accumulation in low velocity regions. These effects must therefore be investigated.

One possible influence of coatings on engineered safeguards system is hydrogen generation. The prime coat on steel surfaces is a zinc paint which, on exposure to hot water, can oxidize to zinc oxide, thereby releasing hydrogen gas from the water. It could be postulated that failure of the topcoat could expose the prime coat and therefore facilitate such hydrogen formation.

However, the design basis hydrogen generation for the plant was calculated based on assuming that all the zine in the coatings reacts to form hydrogen. Therefore, failure of the topcoat does not influence containment hydrogen generation estimates.

3.2.1 Airborne Paint Particles It is concluded that airborne paint (failed paint that becomes airborne) is not a problem because of the following:

All containment HVAC equipment shut down on accident initiation

- The containment Hydrogen Recombiners are not fed by fans and have no filters; they are fed by natural convection and do not have any catalyst. They are the thermal type which oxidize hydrogen (Hz) by electrical.1" heated tubes.

There is a backup H2 Purge System which is manually initiated and located outside the containment. This system would be operated in the event the containment Hz exceeds a predetermined concentration. This system has fans and filters (100% redundant filter banks). However, these filters can be manually changed on high pressure drop. Therefore, airborne failed paint, even if it reached these filtors, would not affect their operation since the filters can be chtnged if they clog.

During a LOCA failed paint would not tend to be airborne due to the scrubbing effect by the containment spray system, and the high density of the failed paint relative to containment ctmosphere density.

3.2.2 Impact on NSSS Safety Systems The effects of paint failure, specifically intrusion of paint fine particles into the NSSS safety systems was studied by Westinghouse. This report is presented in the Appendix-1 and cummarized below.

3-4

.The evaluation of the ECCS and its critical operating components revealed no potential erosion or corrosion degradation with respect to the postulated ingestion of zine into the ECCS. The conclusions resulting from this evaluation and the related containment paint chemical analysis are as follows:

• No significant erosion or corrosion damage will occur to the ECCS or to its critical components.

• Leachable chloride concentration levels (for all containment panels) which could enter the ECCS are significantly below the chloride concentration levels which could cause cracking in sensitized austenitic stainless steel.

• No fluoride cracking of sensitized stainless steel will occur since any fluoride ions, if present, would form fluoroborates which have no affect on stainless steel.

• No deleterious effect are postulated in the reactor -

core for the material concentration assumed in this evaluation.

3-5

i 4.0 SUMP PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 4.1 Sump Performance Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2 show the schematic of the Containment Emergency Sump and the Containment Spray and RHR/SI system connections to the sump. There are two sumps in each containment at Comanche Peak - one for train A and one for train B. Safety requirements can be met with one train operating. However, in normal post-LOCA conditions, both sumps will operate, and all pumps on each sump will operate. Design parameters for the sumps cre shown in Table 4.1-1.

In this discussion, all elevations are referred to the r containment basement level, 808 ft in the plant elevation i reference. After a LOCA, water level in the containment will be o minimum of 6 ft 10 inches above this datum.

The containment spray pumps and the RHR pumps were tested at the tanufacturers' shops. Shown in Table 4.1-2 are the minimum water levels in the containment required to accommodate the required NPSH, excluding the head losses across the screen. Head losses ceross the screen is considered later in this report.

Similar sumps were tested at the Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories (WCHL) using a full scale model as reported in Reference 8. Most tests at WCHL were run with a water level of 2 ft 10 inches above datum. This level was selected to maximize the possibility of vortexing and to maximize head loss in the cumps.

Two series of WCHL tests should be noted in this analysis.

First, there was a series of tests with "50 percent blockage."

This was based on blockage of 50 percent of the screen below the 2 ft 10 inch level. Since the screen extends 5 ft 9 inches above a datum, about 94 square feet of screen were available. Several "50 percent blockage" tests were run with different blockage configurations. Included among these blockage configurations was ene where all screen area below 1 ft 5 inches was blocked.

Some tests were also run with approximately "90 percent blockage." These tests were run with 9 ou'. of the 10 screens blocked off. This test established that sump performance was catisfactory even with only 19 square feet of screen available for flow.

Table 4.1-3 summarizes the WCHL test data for different sump blockages, flow ' velocities and corresponding screen pressure drops.

4-1

TABLE 4.1-1 SUMP DESIGN PARAMETERS DECIGN FLOW, gpm 12,500 COARSE SCREEN Dimensions, ft.-in. Length 30'8" Long radius 26'7" Short radius Width 7'10" Height 5'9" Opening size, in. 0.420 Open area, % 70 FINE SCREEN Dimensions, ft.-in. Length 30'3" Long radius 27'O.5" Short radius Width 6'10" Height 5'9" Opening size, in. O.115 Open area, % 64.6

g., .. .g . .. . . ; ,. ,, . , .q .3 ....

.. - . . 3. . .,, ,.ac..;, p

, . e , ... 7 s , .

.-; , 7 .,.

, a.

, . ,. y . .

f. ., - a . ,; ..: . . .

.;:-. . s._;.. , .;, ;.

\ -;

. < ' s g f .. --

s , s,, .. .-

% \[ \

- x. . -. ,

s

s. b \

s E,. .

- TABLE 4.1-2 4

N- 'PUMPi NPSH

\ ,

5 ,

' 's , .

Pumo

~

's 7 m

x " s'%, s O CSS -

RHR

~ 's .s- s N.. ,

g.

\' 5300 Flow at runout, gpm/ pump Y- '.3$00 T

Pum centerline e'levation '775'7" 776'6"

- \s Water level required to ,

0. 6?. ' 2.2' provide minimum NPSH ft.'18 above above g x w ( containment containment

floor 's floor s.. t s

s ,

- xx

- N %-,% -

s s, ,

, \.

s,

-3 t 's ' \ ,

, m , .

' 1' Does no+:\ dd s e sV,.hludeheadIcssinr.:reens, .

.i s. '

' s'

\, '?

g T '

- s.

_ i q

'f s., =g s t t

\J I g, \/

,, ,,L, g.

i}  %* 5 ; 4 s i..

(

F

{ s1 '3 -

\

t If i

,\ >

- r, c' m~'

N,

. '( ,- k' \ f s '

% k ~

\ ,

. 'i

' i

• \

4

^%.*r k

k* i

• ,I

. - t s  %

q s, i sg >

w s \ e ,

, N. l' N - ,t . _ .

I, %3 ..

m.

'*g g 4 g ,

h fs

( , g $

.w js , g1 t 1 .>

, l., , / g .~. s.

~ -

s.

g; 8 ~

i <

s. s

, , 't.

.I j d (% A s, s s - (s ..\'s\ -

s \ '

+

e s i ti i,

s

+

3 '

P ,, t,

• • '

• g .y y e . '4

,\ s..

3 --

4 er 4

A -

Y s, f

- _ __ L t_

m TABLE 4.1-3

SUMMARY

OF TEST DATA FOR SUMP PERFORMANCE (Ref. Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories)

Screen Sump Screen Flow Area Pressure Drop Blockage, %(11 (apm) {sq. ft.) (ft. of water) 0 12,200 188 0.005 50 16,600 - 17,600 94 0.020 - 0.035 50 9,500 - 10,500 94 0.005 - 0.01 88.3 16,000 - 19,000 22 0.271 - 0.454 89.8 18,500 - 19,500 21 0.314 - 0.34 .. - .

91.5 18,500 - 19,500 16 0.4 -

0.44

'1' Below 2'10" Level ,

. i i

tl.

I nK L.

't O

A

,r ,( < l

.] T _, l Sj:[

~~~ ~

' '- 'm -

i .. . ~ , ,

' ~

-[/, .

~

5.0 WATER VELOCITIES C/ '

t

> ~

-Following the post-LOCA_ safety injection phase, when the contents of the RWST are exhausted, valving is aligned to provide for a recirculating . flow of water: from the', containment eme gency ' sumps.

The waterifl'owing through various zones provides the motive force for the transport.of debris to the containment emergency sumps.  !

The available water velocity'in a given area of the containment '

y; determines the transport potential for the debris. l The object = of- the water . velocity annlysis is to establish migration patterns for. debris within the containment. The flow ^

pattern nwithin the-containment is complex due to the presence of 4 equipment . supports, shield wallo, openings in compartments, floor openings'and.related hydraulic resistances. The methodology used to estimace recirculation flow velocities within various regions of the; containment is similar to that discussed in NUREG/CR-2791.

5.1 Sources of Wtter 1 t

The' ,fources*of Gater. inside the containment following a LOCA

, determines the water level. The water level in turn determines the flow area for calculation of water velocities in various zones of the containment. The sources of water considered in this evaluation are given in Table 5.1-1. This table gives the maximum available water sources, the minimum and maximum amounts of water expected to be in the containment following a LOCA. The difference between the maximum and minimum water source is in the refueling water volume. The maximum water is based on the tank i useable. volume, i.e., 2 percent above high water level set point to the pump suction nozzle. The minimum water volume is based on the refueling water tank capacity from 2 percent below the high water. level set point to 2 percent above the empty level set point (the empty level set point is 6 ft. 4 inches above the pumps suction nozzle.)-

" 5.2 Water Levels at Sump Elevation (808 ft. EL)

The high and low water levels were calculated using the maximum and minimum water inventories given in Table 5.1-1. These calculations were based on the actual net volume available at 808 ft. EL. in-the containment. The net volume was calculated by determining the gross volume and deducting the actual volumes of cquipment, foundations and other components. The calculated high cnd low water levels are also presented in Table 5.1-1.

I J

4

, 5-1

, l

s 5.3 Velocities at Upper Elevation Figure 5.3-1 shows a schematic of the containment spray system arrangement. The sprays are arranged in four zones. Each spray ,

area covers the spa.cc above the floor in the zone. The spray flow rates given in Table 5.3-1 were used to determine the water velocities- on each of the containment floors. Each floor in the containment is provided with 4-inch-high curbs all around. The pathways for spray cooler is only through openings in the floor

'for staircases, equipment hatches and grated openings.

The general methodology used for velocity determination is as follows:

a. The amount of spray flow collected on each floor was calculated using the spray flows e.nd floor areas. The sprays which fall in open areas cre attributed to the next lower. floor.

The . total spray flow for each floor consists of not

• spray on the floor and the flow intercepted from floor above for both open areas and spill openings.

b. The flow discharge from each floor will be through the

. spill opening available. Average discharge in gallons per linear foot of spillway width was calculated for each floor,

c. The minimum water depth for each floor was calculated based on the critical depth. For flow discharging from a rectangular channel ending in free fall at a spill, critical depth occurs near the outlet, as shown in Figure 5.'3-2 (Ref. 9 and 10).

Ds =_,qa where D = critical depth (ft) gw Q = discharge (cfs) g = accel. of gravity w = width (ft) e = energy coefficient I

f The energy coefficient (a) is applied to account for the

! non-uniform distribution of velocities. The energy I

coefficient _ varies from 1.03 to 2.0. An average coefficient of 1.5 was assumed. The assumption is reasonable and conservative because of the wide

! variation of flow conditions and obstructions which results in wide velocity fluctuations.

5-2 l'

L o - _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _

4

d. Flow depths and velocities for locations other than near the spill brink are approximated by deriving flow profiles using " backwater" procedures based on Manning's formula for open channel flow and Bernoulli's Theorem (Ref. 9 and 11).

Friction allowance is based on a conservative roughness coefficient of 0.011 (Ref. 9) for smooth concrete, trowel finish.

Using the above methodology, flow velocities on each of the upper floor elevations are-calculated and the results are presented in Tables 5.3-2 and 5.3-3, Table 5.3-2 gives flow velocities with two containment spray trains operating and Table 5.3-3 gives flow velccities for one train operation.

9 5-3

fl ,

5.4 Water Velocity at the Sump Elevation 5.4.1 Water Flow Paths The flow of fluids entering and exiting the containment during the recirculation phase of a LOCA were examined.

The RHR/SI .(ECCS) and containment spray systems were each

_ oriented as two completely redundant trains. Each train draws water from one of the. containment emergency sumps. The

. containment spray and RHR flow rates are as shown on Table 5.4-1.

The flow rates corresponding to both one and two trains were considered in the water velocity determination. The spray flows

" at each elevation of the containment were evaluated in Section 5.3. All the spray flows from upper flows terminate on the' -808'-0" elevation at various locations. Based on the discussions in Section 5.3, it was determined that the bulk of the' spray flow terminates at azimuth 225*. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was conservatively assumed that the source of all the spray flow wil be at azimuth 225' and as shown on Figure 5.4-1. The flow from the RHR/SI system occurs through the postulated break in the coolant system. This break location was determined to be in Steam Generator Compartments No. 4. The location of this source of water is also shown on Figure 5.4-1.

Figures 5.4-2 and 5.4-3 show the flow paths to the sumps for the RHR/SI flow and the spray flow, respectively.

5.4.2 Water Velocity Analysis The spray and RHR/SI flows were considered separately and then superimposed to yield the total velocity. The containment water inventory determines the height of water inside the containment which in turn determines the cross-sectional area available for flow. The. available areas for flow were chosen by examining the r

containment and choosing cross-sections. that presented maximum These restriction were projected along the

~

rostriction to ficw.

flow; path until.a more limiting rostriction or a significant zone h ^of <1arger flow area was- encountered. Typical cross-sections

1. cramined for this evaluation are shown on Figures 5.4-4 and 5.4-5. Figure 5.4 4 and 5.4-5 represents the location of

, cross-sections within-the containment and the -steam generator L compartments, .respectively. Figures 5.4.-6 and 5.4-7 represent-two typical cross-section within the steam generator compartment

. ~Nc. 4. ~ Figures 5.4-8 represento a typical cross-section'along L

the most restrictive enannel to the sumps in the corridor outside

! the steam generator compartments.

l L

5-4 l

--n-., ,..,.,,-,n, e < . . - - - , , , -r---,, - - . - . , . - , , , , , , , -

1 l

l l

Flow within the containment was assumed to be represented by a '

number of parallel open channel flows. Accordingly, pressure drop from the break region and spray source to the sump is

. constant for each flow path, and the. summation of mass flows through the various paths equals the total flow. The magnitude ,

of the flow rate through each channel is dependent upon the '

hydraulic resistance presented by the path.

As described in NUREG. CR-2791, a flow resistance map of the containment floor was developed as shown on Figure 5.4-4. The map identifies- channels (parallel ' resistance paths) and sub-channels (series resistances within a channel). A point source, of flow was selected and the potential paths of flow to the sumps were determined. The source of RHR and SI water was postulated to be from a reactor coolant pipe break in steam generator compartment No. 4, which is closest to the sumps.

The resistancess were determined as the length divided by the area of each sub-channel in the flow path. The area will vary depending on the water level chosen. The pathways are developed

'in the form of " circuit" diagrams or networks for the RHR/SI flows and spray flows as shown on Figures 5.4-9 and 5.4-10 respectively. The fraction of flow in each branch was determined by combining the resistances as in an electrical cicuit diagram and proportioning the flows by resolving the parallel and serial resistances. The resistances utilized are hydraulic and

.therefore the resistances relate to pressure drop in proportion sto_ the square of the mass flow. By determining the total equivalent resistance, the total flow was apportioned to each channel. Velocity was then determined for each subchannel by dividing the channel flow rate by the subchannel area.

The velocity summary is presented on Tables 5.4-2 through 5.4-13.

t l Tables 5.4-2 through 5.4-9 show the flows and- sub-channel l

resistance determinations. Tables 5.4-10 through 5.4-13 show the combined velocity summarf for RHR/SI and spray systems operation.

i

-The- influence of various factors on the velocity was examined.

It was determined that the effect of the cross-sectional area was

the .most significant factor. The cross-sectional area, in L actuality, is subject to change as the water level in the L containment varies. The total velocity was determined as the

! water level was varied - between 814 feet and 817.5 feet. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.4-14.

5-5

O Sf* RAY H CC C C

~

-Tc'A6 NC22Lt3 3,N (1ET MO4 El o

C l 24cm FAtt n

88WN F#

..m- A STAaR5 3%g1 W

-o , ,

~

r E

67 aec;2

,es25mo G,.

l l.l ' -

.^ j  :

S v

-,, . . , . ,. d '

- - - - - - - -e .1n b ggt 6- g i h ,,[- i 34 N,[L S:.C* C*

( ---

g^

j ) -u so :.r e r.. SE5' 7"(AW4.\

l_l ' I 2

J set sm 1 gf '*]? 7~ "I't., ,,) t.. a st'-6*

-p>

t -

,, . . . s -T e.; wezzurs e ct. e r;-o ( Ave.)

- su._sco c'__

\ p /

i Notes: 1. 6" Gap betwen Floor & Contaument 1.'all Allows for Drcpfall Eet'een Floors.

2. Ntrrber of Nozzles shown for each Floor l is for One Train cnly.

FIGURE 5.3- 1 CONTAINMENT SPRAY ZONES

r l

i 1

n- l 1 FRICTIOM LOSS o

VELOCITY HEAD

_ . -_ . ~

- - - ~ ~-

ZZ CRITICAL DEPTH _ _

_ _ c _ .x. '

u. . _ _ . _

.. s S s N' ,

FLOOR .: ' - e

,~

, a. s s

..y e

- ~- e .~ ~ O P E N I NQ+

~

l

~

FIGURE 5.3-2 FR E E FA LL SP IL LWAY

2%,.

a '~,_.

sp -

g' .

g

= .g

, eg.

z

g,3 b gs .2  ;

5

. ~

C i t k i ! g) .

SG-4b Sd l, R W A u @iI. 9'@.

p s. s Sump

' s

.a l

FIGURE 5.4-1 -

CONTAINMENT CHANNEL LOCATIONS

@= SOURCE OF WATER

MW L M M MM'-

S S -

1. 4 4

SG-3 SG -2 1

ya -- s' ge s Sump

-s a FIGU RE 5.4-2 RHR/SI FLOW PATH

('A= BREAK tocATion)

1 l

ai e

[  ! 1 W,

4 54-4 I 64 1 s'

/

s Sump a 8 ,.

I i

FIQURE B.4-3 SP RAY FLOW PATH (X = SPRAY SOUracE.) ,

+rwme -- -a.m-, ,----.---=_--are -__.--*~~_----*---.---e------w _w_ _ _ _ _______ _ _ _ _ ____-- _

IC

1. _ 8

$ i IA I x' 2A 8B SEE N OT E 8A 56-3 SG -2 'g 7 Door ~6 7ocog 2B P _

o GDooa4 GD00R 4 64 I 54 SEE MOTE 4A gk SA bb

syg ,  %

a 8 46 4C- 1 l

NOTE: SEE Fl4 5 4-5 FOR TYPlc AL STEAM C3Ekl.COMPARTMEMT SECTIOMS.

I FIC1U RE 5,4- 4 FLOW R.ESIST ANCE MAP SUS CHANMEL LOCATIOt4%

I.----, ..n, - , - - . - , ,,, - , . _ .-----. _ - .....--.--.___ . - . . . . . . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . , - . - _ _ _ _ _

i W F

' 9 ,

b

/ 1 l to"R.C PIPE B

~

,- .c. PUMP g

/!

/

)

l l MIM, l

/' ,

e STM. GEM. r5

([I s @@

P u A N1 - STM. GEN. COMPT. Mo 4 F140 RE 5.4-5 l

CR.OSS SECTIOM LOCATIOh!S l

l l . . _ . - . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ __ .. . . _ - . . _ _ _ _ . - _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ - _ _

i l

i I

/ y' I

'2."6 6

wsT -*

.cm ww

'_._ MA%. WATER L E.V EL.

e.t. e n :. u-T4Pih . rs :

. m 1"6 PIP A p;' , .,=3 i l}

PLcor.'EliBik-O# 'FI

# f se.cTicu SA-5A TAKiR s'-o" south OF DOORWAY F i c,U R E 5. 4.- 6 CO NTAIMME.k1T BLDQ.

STEAM QE N. COMPARTMENT kb. 4 CROSS SECTioM 5A

s f

d

'/r

,,,k _ _f..

d 's i

'2 y  ! fDooRWAyl l ny I , 8 -1 MAX. WATER LEVEL #  ! h--h,-

p_t,g p g,

..v J- -1 g

if - . i

,I N.L< > 3  :

m -

[ pnp ES NI PE qJ  ;

em  % -

, i, F@i T f - FLeora, et_.si c -' o-

SECTloM 5C-5C _

\

TAK.EM iI Lo" souT4 oF DoctEWAY FlQURE 5.4-7.

CONTAIWMF NT BLD4 STEAM QEN. COMPARTMENT No. 4 CROSS SECTION Sc ,

i max.wATen tevet

.g, Lt.. S I T '-c/ ,qoo ,

.a ]

I FL. E t, bob'-cf

• S ECT. iohl 46-46 TAK.E.M @ (oO"A21MuT4 FIGURE 5. 4- 8 coNTAIN MEMT BLDC,.

CO R RI DO R.

Cross SECTioM 46

9 CHANNEL CHAMNEL 5 4 SOURCE _

SUMP ZOME (2>REAK)

CHAMNEL CHANNEL G 3 yn[+sNas'+ssj' s

e F

FIGURE 5.4-9 NETWORK DI AQR AM '

RHR/ SI SYSTEM t

n ,-. - . , _ . . . . -,. -

. , , . , e., , - ,,. ,_.,re. .

CHANNEL CHANMEL CHAMNEL _

8 4 CHANNEL SOURCE; 7 SUMP ZON_E

^

CHANUEL CHANNEL  ;

2 3 TOTAL NETWORK CHAMNEL EQUIVALENT REstSTAMCE g

FOR. PARTIAL METWOR.KS.

~

• E rr y CHAMNEL

_ - Y,, + i g7 7

=

R i7 g --*Ri7,s,4 = RiT + Ra%

p NUEL c ;#u - a,, . R, . R, an,,, .

(

yz

--=- Rgg= I 1 R5 -" A4 825 )

FIGURE 5.4-10 NETWORK DIAGRAM- SPRAY

TABLE 5.1-1 WATER INVENTORY AND LEVELS Available Maximum Minimum Capacity, Quantity, Quantity, Source cu.ft. cu.ft. cu.ft.

Reactor Coolant 12,740 12,740 12,740 Refueling Water Storage Tank 70,400 67,990 53,570 Accumulators 3,810 3,810 3,810 Miscellaneous 920 920 470 Total. 87,370 85,460 70,590 Water. Level (ft)'28 817.5 814.8 Note:

(1) Based on calculation of actual net volumes available excluding equipment volumes, foundations, and other components.

i

_ _ _ - . _ _ _ - _ . __ .~. _.- - - . . - - . . . _ . _- _ _.

l \

TABLE 5.3-1 CONTAINMENT SPRAY DISTRIBUTION Floor Flow gpm Zone (88 Elevation One Train Two Trains A 905 4165 8330 B 860 1018 2036 C 832 213 426 D 808 410 820 Note:

1. See Figure 5.3-1 for Zone locations.

TABLE 5.3-2 )

CALCULATION OF VELOCITIES (Two Spray Trains)  ;

Floor Elevation Levels 905'-9" 860'-O" 832'6" Open Area sq.ft. 6,836 6,372 6,100 Non-Open Area sq.ft., 7,478 7,942 8,214 Clear Floor' Areas for  ;

Flow sq.ft. 6,400 6,750 6,900 Flow on Floor Area gpm 4,352 1,723 5,752 Spill Opening Perimeter ft 62 74 110 Unit' Discharge at Spill Openings (Average) cfs/ft 0.156 0.0519 0.116 Water Depth inches 1.2 1.5 1.08 Velocity at Spill-Brink fps 1.5 1.0 1.4 Velocity @

5 ft. from Spill Brink fps 0.6 0.5 1.1 Velocity @

10 ft. from Spill Brink fps O.4 0.4 1.0 l

L l-

, TABLE 5.3-3 CALCULATION OF VELOCITIES (One Spray Train) -

Floor Elevation Levels 905'-9" E60'-O" G32'6" Open Area sq.ft. 6,836 6,372 6,100 Non-Open Area sq.ft. 7,478 7,942 8,214 Clear Floor Areas for Flow sq.ft. 6,400 6,750 6,900 Flow on Floor Area gpm 2,176 861 2,875 Spill Opening Perimeter ft 62 74 110 Unit Discharge at Spill Openings (Average) cfs/ft 0.078 0.0259 0.058 Water Depth inches 0.79 0.38 0.65 Velocity at Spill Brink fps 1.2 0.8 1.1 Velocity @

5 ft. from Spill Brink fps 0.5 0.4 0.7 Velocity @

10 ft. from Spill Brink fps 0.3 0.3 0.7

TABLE 5.4-1 CONTAINMENT SPRAY AND RHR/SI FLOWS Containment Spray GPM CFS One Train 5,800 12.94 Two Trains 11,600 25.87

.RHR/SI One Train 2,570 5.73 Two Trains 5,140 11.45 I

t-1, .

l 5-6 I: '

l l

TABLE 5.4-2 SFRAY FLOW CONTRIBUTION ( ONE TRAIN )

LOW WATER LEVEL ( EL. 814.8 FT. )

SPRAY FLOW (CFS): 12.94 CHANNEL--BRANCH LENGTH AREA RESIST. FLOW VELOCITY NO. NO. FT. SQ.FT. L/A,1/FT CFS FPS 7 DOOR 3 17.00 9.11 1.87 2.07 0.23 7 A3 3.00 15.35 0.20 0.13 7 B3 3.00 30.57 0.10 0.07 7 C3 5.00 39.17 0.13 0.05 7 D3 3.00 56.23 0.05 0.04 7 E3 16.00 56.96 0.28 0.04 7 F3 1.00 18.39 0.05 0.11 7 A2 3.00 15.35 0.20 0.13 7 B2 3.00 30.57 0.10 0.07 7 C2 5.00 39.17 0.13 0.05 7 D2 3.00 56.23 0.05 0.04 7 E2 16.00 56.96 0.28 0.04 7 F2 1.00 18.39 0.05 0.11 7

DOOR 2 14.00 9.11 1.54 0.23 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 5.02

'8 A 30.00 35.72 0.84 5.40 0.15 8 B 14.00 81.60 0.17 0.07 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.01 1 A 55.00 81.60 0.67 3.33 0.04 1 B 29.00 27.20 1.07 0.12 1 C 23.00 115.60 0.20 0.03 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.94 2 A' 60.00 115.60 0.52 7.54 0.07 2 B 16.00 74.80 0.21 0.10 2 C 38.00 102.00 0.37 0.07 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.11 3 A 24.00 143.96 0.17 7.54 0.05 3' B 10.00 85.47 0.12 0.09 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.28 4 A 22.00 128.43 0.17 5.40 0.04 4 8 28.00 38.51 0.73 0.14 4 C 7.00 101.07 0.07 0.05 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.97

TABLE 5.4-3 RHR/SI FLOW CONTRIBUTION ( ONE TRAIN )

. LOW WATER LEVEL ( EL. 814.8 FT. )

RHR/SI FLOW (CFS): 5.73

. CHANNEL BRANCH LENGTH AREA RESIST. FLOW- VELOCITY NO. NO. FT. SQ.FT. L/A,1/FT CFS FPS 5 DOOR 4 17.00 9.11 1.87 2.63 0.29 5 A4 '3.00 15.35 0.20 0.17 5 B4 3.00 30.57 0.10 0.09 5 C4 5.00 39.17 0.13 0.07 5 D4 3.00 56.23 O.05 O.05 r 5' E4 16.00 56.96 0.28 0.05 5 F4 1.00 18.39 0.05 0.14 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 2.'68 6 A1 3.00 15.35 0.20 3.10 0.20 6 -81 :3.00 30.57 O.10 O.10 6 C1 5.00 39.17 O.13 O.08 i-

6. D1- 3.00 56.23 O.05 O.06 6 E1 16.00 56.96 0.28 O.05

6. F1 1.00 18.39 0.05 0.17 6 DOOR 1 14.00 9.11 1.54 0.34

h. TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 2.35 3 A 24.00 143.96 0.17 3.10 0.02

.3 D 10.00 85.47 O.12 O.04

. TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE' O.28 4- A 22.00 128.'43 O.17 2.63 O.02 4 B 28.00 38.51 0.73 0.07 7

-4 -C '7.00 101.07 O.07. O.03

!- TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.97

- TABLE 5.4-4 SPRAY FLOW CONTRIBUTION ( TWO TRAINS )

LOW WATER LEVEL ( EL. 814.8 FT. )

1 SPRAY' FLOW (CFS): 25.87 CHANNEL ' BRANCH LENGTH AREA RESIST. FLOW VELOCITY NO. NO. FT. SQ.FT. L/A,1/FT CFS FPS

=-- -=_ -- --

7 DOOR 3 17.00 9.11 1.87 4.13 0.45 7 A3 3.00 15.35 0.20 0.27 7 B3 3.00 30.57 0.10 0.14 7 C3 5.00 39.17 0.13 0.11 7 D3 3.00 56.23 0.05 0.07 7~ E3 16.00 56.96 0.28 0.07 7 F3 1.00 18.39 0.05 0.22 7 A2 3.00 15.35 0.20 0.27 7 B2 3.00 30.57 0.10 0.14 7 C2 5.00 39.17 0.13 0.11 7 D2 3.00 56.23 0.05 0.07 7 E2 16.00 56.96 0.28 0.07 7 F2 1.00 18.39 0.05 0.22 7 DOOR 2 14.00 9.11 1.54 0.45 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 5.02 8 A 30.00 35.72 0,84 10.79 0.30 8 D 14.00 81.60 0.17 0.13 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.01 1- A 55.00 81.60 0.67 6.65 0.08 1 B 29.00 27.20 1.07 0.24 1 C 23.00 115.60 0.20 0.06 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.94

.2 A 60.00 115.60 0.52 15.08 0.13 2 B 16.00 74.80 0.21 0.20 2 C 38.00 102.00 0.37 0.15 TOTAL-CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.11 3 A 24.00 143.96 0.17 15.08 0.10 3 B 10.00 85.47 0.12 0.18 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.28 4 A 22.00 128.43 0.17 10.79 0.08 4 B 28.00 38.51 0.73 0.28 4 C 7.00 101.07 0.07 0.11 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.97 e

- -~- -

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

TABLE 5.4-5 RHR/SI FLOW CONTRIBUTION ( TWO TRAINS )

-LOW WATER LEVEL ( EL. 814.8 FT. )

RHR/SI FLOW-(CFS): 11.45 CHANNEL BRANCH LENGTH AREA RESIST. FLOW VELOCITY NO. NO. FT. SO.FT. L/A,1/FT CFS FPS

________ _______ ________ = =_ _______ ______ ________

5 DOOR 4 17.00 9.11 1.87 5.26 0.58 5 A4 3.00 15.35 0.20 0.34 5 84 3.00 30.57 0.10 0.17 5 C4 5.00 39.17 0.13 0.13 5 D4- '3.00 56.23 0.05 0.09 5 E4 16.00 56.96 0.28 0.09 5 F4 1.00 18.39 0.05 0.29 TOTAL' CHANNEL RESISTANCE 2.68 6 A1 3.00 15.35 0.20' 6.19 0.40 6 B1 3.00 30.57 0.10 0.20 6 C1 5.00 39.17 0.13 0.16 6- D1 3.00 56.23 0.05 0.11 6 El- 16.00 56.96 0.28 0.11 6 F1 1.00- 18.39 0.05 0.34 6 ' DOOR 1 14.00 9.11 1.54 0.68 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 2.35 3- A' 124.00 143.96 0.17 6.19 0.04 3 B 10.00~ 85.47 0.12 0.07-TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.28 4 A. 22.00 128.43 0.17 5.26 0.04 4 B 28.00- 38.51 0.73 0.14 4 C 7.00 101.07 0.07 0.05

. TOTAL ~ CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.97 9

9 4

?$ '

C' n,

'\.\

, \, - r

' ** g N \, g

,,-\

< ,s ,

G d, ['\ ] ' -Q~

- ^

. p - A ,;w '

s' "% , i'..t %d

~

\. ."%. ?; ,

y -T AE}7E 5.4 ,6 T' t . '

i'x SPRAY FLOW CONTRID07'1pN . ONE TRAIN )

HIGH WATER LEVEL ( EL'.' 817. 3 FT. s ).

'  ?' , \

SPRAY FLOW (CFS): 12.94 '\

s '

CHANNEL BRANCH LENGTH RREA I' RESIST. FLOW VELOCITY NO. NO. FT. '50.FT. L/A,1/FT' CFS FPS s

7 DOOR 3 s17.OO 17.90 0.95 2.31 0.13 7 A3 3.00 30.15 ' O.10 0.08 7 B3 3.00 60.05 0.05 0.04 7 C3 5.00 76.95 0.06 0.03 7 D3 3.00 110.46 0.03 0.02 7 E3 16.00 111.88 0.14 0.02 7 F3 1.00 36.13 0.03 0.06 7 A2 3.00 30.15 0.10 0.08 7 B2 3.00 60.05 0.05 0.04 7 C2 5.00 76.95 0.06 0.03 7- D2 3.00 110.46 0.03 0.02 7 E2 16.00 111.88 0.14 0.02 7 F2 1.00 36.13 0.03 0.06 7 DOOR 2 14.00 17.?O O.78 0.13 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 2.56 8 A 30.00 49.90 0.60 5.45 0.11 8 B 14.00 114.00 0.12 0.05 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.72 1 A 55.00 114.00 0.48 3.14 0.03 i B 29.00 38.00 0.76 0.08 1 C 23.00 161.50 0.14 0.02 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.39 2 A 60.00 161.50 0.37 7.49 0.05 2 B 16.00 104.50 0.15 0.07 2 C 38.00 142.50 0.27 0.05 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.79 3 A 24.00 201.12 0.12 7.49 0.04 3 B 10.00 119.41 0.08 0.06 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.20 4 A 22.00 179.43 0.12 5.45 0.03 4 B 28.00 53.80 0.52 0.10 4 C 7.00 141.20 0.05 0.04 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.69

TABLE 5.4-7 RHR/SI FLOW CONTRIBUTION ( ONE TRAIN )

HIGH WATER LEVEL ( EL. 817.5 FT. )

RHR/SI FLOW (CFS): 5.73 CHANNEL BRANCH LENGTH AREA RESIST. FLOW VELOCITY NO. NO. FT. SO.FT. L/A,1/FT CFS FPS 5 DOOR 4 17.00 17.90 .O.95 2.59 0.14 5 A4 3.00 30.15 0.10 0.09 5 B4 3.00 60.05 0.05 0.04 5 C4 5.00 76.95 0.06 0.03 5 D4 3.00 110.46 0.03 0.02 5 E4 16.00 111.88 0.14 0.02 5 F4 1.00 36,13 0.03 0.07 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.36 6 A1 3.00 30.15 0.10 3.14 0.10 6 B1 3.00 60.05 0.05 0.05 6 C1 5.00 76.95 0.06 0.04 6 D1 3.00 110.46 0.03 0.03 6 El 16.00 111.88 0.14 0.03 6 F1 1.00 36.13 0.03 0.09 6 DOOR 1 14.00 17.90 0.78 0.18 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.19 3 A 24.00 201.12 0.12 3.14 0.02 3 D 10.00 119.41 0.08 0.03 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.20 4 A 22.00 179.43 0.12 2.59 0.01 4 B 28.00 53.80 0.52 0.05 4 C 7.00 141.20 0.05 0.02 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.69

Ti ~ ~

Et TABLE 5.4-8 SPRAY FLOW CONTRIBUTION ( TWO TRAINS )

HIGH WATER LEVEL ( EL. 817.5 FT. )

SPRAY FLOW (CFS): 25.87 (CHANNEL BRANCH LENGTH LAREA RESIST. FLOW VELOCITY NO. NO. FT. SO.FT. L/A,1/FT CFS FPS 7- -DOOR 3 17.00 17.90 0.95 4'.62 0.26 7 A3 3.00 30.15 0.10 0.15 7 B3 3.00 60.05 0.05 0.00 7 C3 5.00 76.95 0.06 0.06 7- D3 3.00 110.46 0.03 0.04 7 E3 16.00 111.88 0.14 0.04 7 F3- 1.00 36.13 0.03 0.13 7 A2 . 3.00 R30.15' O.10 0.15

-7 B2 3.00 60.05 0.05 0.08 7' - C2 5.00 76.95 0.06 0.06

7 D2 3.00 110.46 0.03 0.04

'7 ' E2 16.00 111.88 0.14 0.04 7 F2 1.00 36.13 0.03 0.13 7 DOOR 2 '14.00 17.90 0.78 0.26

.V TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 2.56 8 A 30.00 49.90 0.60 1C.90 0.22 O B 14.00 114.00 0.12' O.10 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.72

- 1 A 55.00 114.00 0.48 6.27 0.06 1 B 29.00 38.00 0.76 0.17 1 C 23.00 161.50 0.14 0.04 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.39 2 A- 60.00 161.50 0.37 14.97 0.09 2- B 16.00 104.50 0.15 0.14 2- C 38.00 142.50 0.27 0.11 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.79 3 A 24.00 201.17 0.12 14.97 0.07 3 B- 10.00 119.41 0.08 0.13 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.20 4 A 22.00 179.43' O.12 10.90 0.06 4 8 28.'0 0 53.80 0.52 0.20 4 ,- C- 7.00 141.20 0.05 0.08

TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.69 w

t n e -s .- . , -

TABLE 5.4-9 RHR/SI FLOW CONTRIBUTION ( TWO TRAINS )

HIGH WATER LEVEL ( EL. 817.5 FT. )

RHR/SI FLOW (CFS): 11.45 CHANNEL BRANCH LENGTH AREA RESIST. FLOW VELOCITY NO. NO. FT. SQ.FT. L/A,1/FT CFS FPS 5 DOOR 4 17.00 17.90 0.95 5.18 0.29 5 A4 3.00 30.15 0.10 0.17 5 D4 3.00 60.05 0.05 0.09 5 C4 5.00 76.95 0.06 0.07 5 D4 3.00 110.46 0.03 0.05 5 E4 16.00 111.88 0.14 0.05 5 F4 1.00 36.13 0.03 0.14 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.36 6 A1 3.00 30.15 0.10 6.27 0.21 6 B1 3.00 60.05 0.05 0.10 6 C1 5.00 76.95 0.06 0.08 6 D1 3.00 110.46 0.03 0.06 6 El 16.00 111.88 0.14 0.06 6 F1 1.00 36.13 0.03 0.17 6 DOOR 1 14.00 17.90 0.78 0.35 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE 1.19 3 A 24.00 201.12 0.12 6.27 0.03 3 B 10.00 119.41 0.08 0.05 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.20 4 A 22.00 179.43 0.12 5.18 0.03 4 B 28.00 53.80 0.52 0.10 4 C 7.00 141.20 0.05 0.04 TOTAL CHANNEL RESISTANCE O.69

=_ _ _ - - - . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . . . . .

TABLE 5.4-10 TOTAL VELOCITY-ONE TRAIN, LOW LEVEL WATER HT= 814.80 FLOWS,CFS: SPRAY = 12.94 ,RHR/SI= 5.73 SPRAY RHR/SI TOTAL CHANNEL BRANCH FLOW VELOCITY FLOW VELOCITY VELOCITY NO. NO. CFS FPS CFS FPS FPS 5 DCOR 4 0.00 0.00 2.63 0.29 0.29 5 A4 0.00 0.17 0.17 5 B4 0.00 0.09 0.09 5 C4 0.00 0.07 0.07 5 D4 0.00 0.05 0.05 5 E4 0.00 0.05 0.05 5- F4' O.OO O.14 0.14 6 A1 0.00 0.00 3.10 0.20 0.20 6 01' O.OO O.10 0.10 6 C1 0.00 0.08 0.08 6 D1 0.00 0.06 0.06 6 El O.00 0.05 0.05 6 F1 0.00 0.17 0.17 6 DOOR 1 0.00 0.34 0.34 7 DOOR 3 2.07 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 7 A3 0.13 0.00 0.13 7 B3 0.07 0.00 0.07 7 C3 0.05 0.00 0.05 7 D3 0.04 0.00 0.04 7 E3 0.04 0.00 0.04 7 'F3 O.11 O.00 O.11 7 A2 0.13 0.00 0.13 7 B2 0.07 0.00 0.07 7 C2 0.05 0.00 0.05 7- D2 0.04 0.00 0.04 7 E2 0.04 0.00 0.04 7 F2 0.11 0.00 0.11 7 DOOR 2 0.23 0.00 0.23 8 A 5.39 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 8 D- 0.07 0.00 0.07 1 A 3.33 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 i B O.12 0.00 0.12 1 C O.03 0.00 0.03 2 A 7.54 0.07 0.00 0.00 0. )7 2 B- 0.10 0.00 0.10 2 C O.07 0.00 0.07 3 A 7.54 ~O.05 3.10 0.02 0.07 3 B O.09 0.04 0.12 4 A 5.39 0.04 2.63 0.02 0.06 4 B O.14 0.07 0.21 4 C O.05 O.03 0.08

TABLE 5.4-11 l TOTAL VELOCITY--TWO TRAINS, LOW LEVEL WATER HT= 814.80 FLOWS,CFS: SPRAY = 25.87 ,RHR/SI= 11.45 SPRAY RHR/SI TOTAL CHANNEL BRANCH FLOW VELOCITY FLOW VELOCITY VELOCITY  !

NO. NO. CFS FPS rS FPS FPS l 5 DOOR 4 0.00 0.00 5.26 0.58 0.58 5 A4 0.00 0.34 0.34 5 B4 0.00 0.17 0.17 5 C4 O.00 O.13 O.13 5 D4 0.00 0.09 0.09 5 E4 0.00 0.09 0.09 5 F4 0.00 0.29 0.29 6 Al O.00 0.00 6.19 0.40 0.40 6 B1 0.00 0.20 0.20 6 C1 0.00 0.16 0.16 6 D1 0.00 0.11 0.11 6 El O.00 0.11 0.11 6 F1 0.00 0.34 0.34 6 DOOR 1 0.00 0.68 0.68 7 DOOR 3 4.13 0.45 O. 0.00 0.45 7 A3 0.27 0.00 0.27 7 B3 0.14 O.00 O.14 7 C3 0.11 0.00 0.11 7 D3 0.07 0.00 0.07 7 E3 0.07 0.00 0.07 7 F3 0.22 0.00 0.22 7 A2 0.27 0.00 0.27 7 B2 0.14 0.00 0.14 7 C2 0.11 0.00 0.11 7 D2 0.07 0.00 0.07 7 E2 0.07 0.00 0.07 7 F2 0.22 0.00 0.22 7 DOOR 2 0.45 0.00 0.45 8 A 10.79 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 8 B O.13 0.00 0.13 1 A 6.65 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 1 B O.24 0.00 0.24 i C O.06 0.00 O.06 2 A 15.08 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.13 2 B O.20 0.00 0.20 2 C O.15 0.00 0.15 3 A 15.083 0.10 6.19 O.04 O.15 3 B O.18 0.07 0.25 4 A 10.79 0.08 5.26 0.04 0.12 4 B O.28 0.14 0.42 4 C O.11 0.05 0.16

1 9_

', Y '

~f ABLE 5. 4-12 TOTAL VELOCITY-ONE TRAIN, HIGH LEVEL -

WATER HT= -817.50 FLOWS,CFS: SPRAY = 12.94 ,RHR/SI= 5.73 SPRAY RHR/SI TOTAL CHANNEL BRANCH FLOW VELOCITY FLOW VELOCITY VELOCITY

- NO . - NO. CF3 FPS CFS FPS FPS

-- = - _ _ - _ _ _ _ ------__

5 DOOR.4- O.00 O.00 2.59 O.14 0.14 15 A4- O.00 O.09 O.09 5 B4 0.00 0.04 0.04 5

C4 0.00 0.03 0.03 5 -D4 0.00 0.02 0.02 5 E4 0.00 0.02 0.02 5- F4 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 O.00 3.14 O.10 O.10 F6- '; A 1 0 00 0.05 0.05 6~ B1 6 C1 0.00 0.04 0.04 6 D1 0.00 0.03 0.03 6 El O.00 0.03 0.03

'6s F1 . O.00 O.09 O.09 6 DOOR 1 0.00 0.18 0.18 7 D00R 3 2.31 O.13 O.00 O.00 O.13 7 A3 0.08 0.00 0.08 7 D3 O.04 O.00 O.04 7 C3 0.03 0.00 0.03 7 D3 0.02 0.00 0.02 7 E3 0.02 0.00 0.02 7 C F3 O.06 0.00 O.06 7 A2 0.08 0.00 0.08 7 B2 0.04 0.00 0.04

.7 C2 O.03 O.00 O.03

~7 D2 O.02 0.00 O.02 7 E2 0.02 0.00 0.02 7 ~F2 0.06 O.00 O.06 7 DOOR 2 0.13 0.00 0.13 8 A 5.45 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 8 B O.05 O.00 O.05 1 A 3.14 0.03 O.00 O.00 O.03

-1 B O.08 O.00 O.08 1- C O.02 O.00 O.02 2 .A 7.49 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 f

2 D O.07 O.00 O.07

'2 C O.05 O.00 O.05 3 A 7.49 0.04 3.14 0.02 0.05 3~ B O.06 O.03 O.09

. 4 A 5.45 0.05 2.59 0.01 0.04 4 B O.10 0.05 0.15 4 C O.04 O.02 O.06

o TABLE 5.4-13 TOTAL VELOCITY-TWO TRAINS, HIGH LEVEL WATER HT= 817.50 FLOWS,CFS: SPRAY = 25.87 ,RHR/SI= 11.45 SPRAY RHR/SI TOTAL CHANNEL BRANCH FLOW VELOCITY FLOW VELOCITY VELOCITY NO. NO. CFS FPS CFS FPS FPS

_=

5 DOOR 4 0.00 0.00 5.18 0.29 0.29 5 A4 0.00 0.17 0.17 5 B4 0.00 0.09 0.09 5 C4 0.00 0.07 0.07 5 D4 0.00 0.05 0.05 5 E4 0.00 0.05 0.05 5 F4 0.00 0.14 0.14

'6 A1; O.00 0.00 6.27 0.21 0.21 6 B1 0.00 0.10 0.10 6 C1 0.00 0.08 0.08 6 D1 0.00 0.06 0.06 6- -El O.00 0.06 0.06 6 F1' O.OO O.17 0.17 6 DOOR'1 0.00 0.35 0.35 7- DOOR 3 4.62 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.26 7 A3 0.15 0.00 0.15 7 .B3 0.08 0.00 0.08 7 C3 0.06 0.00 0.06 7 D3- 0.04 0.00 0.04 7 E3 0.04 0.00 0.04 7- 'F3 0.13 0.00 0.13

'7 A2 0.15 0.00 0.15 7 B2 0.08 0.00 0.08 7 C2 0.06 0.00 0.06 7 D2 'O.04 O.00 O.04 7 E2 'O.04 0.00 0.04 7 F2 0.13 0.00 0.13 7' ' DOOR 2 0.26 0.00 -0.26 8 A 10.90 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.22 8 B O.10 0.00 0.10 1 A 6.27 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 1 B O.17 0.00 0.17 1 C O.04 0.00 0.04 2 A 14.97 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09 2 B O.14 0.00 0.14

'2 C O.11 0.00 0.11

'3' A 14.97 O.07 6.27 O.03 O.11 3 B O.'13 0.05 O.18 4 A 10.90 0.06 5.18 0.03 0.09 4 B O.20 0.10 0.30 4 C. 0.08 0.04 0.11

- . , ,, - . . - . .. . .- -. _ . . . . . .. ~ . . . -

TABLE 5.4-14 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS TWO TRAINS VS. WATER LEVEL VELOCITIES (FPS) VERSUS WATER ELEVATIONS (FT)

-=--------------------------------------------

CHANNEL BRANCH ---- -

- - - - - - - - _=

NO. NO. 814.00 814.80 815.00 815.50 816.50 817.50 5 DOOR 4 0.81 0.58 0.54 0.46 0.35 0.29 5 A4 0.48 0.34 0.32 0.27 0.21 0.17 5 B4 0.24 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.09 5 C4 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.07 5 D4 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 5 E4 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 5 F4 0.40 0.29 0.27 0.23 0.18 0.14 6 A1 0.56 0.40 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.21 6 B1 0.28 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.10 6 C1 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.08 6 D1 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 6 El O.15 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 6 F1 0.47 0.34 0.31 0.27 0.21 0.17 6 DOOR 1 0.94 0.68 0.63 0.55 0.43 0.35 7 DOOR 3 0.59 0.45 0.43 0.38 0.31 0.26 7 A3 0.35 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.15 7 B3 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.08 7 C3 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 7 D3 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 7 E3 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 7 F3 0.29 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.13 7 A2 0.35 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.15 7 D2 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.08 7 C2 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 7 D2 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 7 E2 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 7 F2 0.29 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.13 7 DOOR 2 0.59 0.45 0.43 0.38 0.31 0.26 8 A O.34 0.30 0.29 0.27 0.24 0.22 8 D O.15 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 1 A O.10 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 1 B O.29 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.17 1 C O.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 2 A O.15 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.09 2 B O.23 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 2 C O.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 3 A O.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 3 B O.28 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.20 0.18 4 A O.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 4 B O.47 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.33 0.30 4 C O.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.11

6.0 PAINT DEBRIS GENERATION AND TRANSPORT 6.1 Paint Debris Generation Most of the coating systems in the containment at CPSES are LOCA qualified and are expected to withstand the service conditions during normal plant operation and post-LOCA operations. However, for the purpose of this evaluation it is postulated that all the coating systems in the containment fail.

An extremely conservative worst case scenario was postulated where all the coatings (100 percent) inside the containment fail and form debris. This assumption, although unrealistic, provices for an analytical approach to evaluate the effects of the coating failures on plant safety systems.

In addition to the assumption that all the paint fails, another extremely conservative and equally unrealistic worst case t assumption was made for the particle size distribution of the failed paint. For the paint debris transport analysis, it was assumed that all the paint fails as 1/8-inch particles. This is

-the smallest particle size which cannot pass through the sump screens and is the most transportable. Thus, this assumption is extremely conservative for sump blockage analysis purposes.

Table 6'.1-1 summarizes the estimated quantities of paint used in CPSES Unit 1 containment in various locations. The quantity of paint debris at each elevation of the containment was apportioned based on the available paint directly above the floor area. The paint from the vertical surfaces was assumed to fall vertically to the floor surface below. In all cases very conservative assumptions were used to maximize the paint debris transport to the sumps. For example, all the paint on vertical surfaces of the containment liner (up to the spring line) was assumed to be deposited on the lowest floor (El. 808'-O").

6-1

p.2 Paint Transport The NUREG/CR-2791 methodology addresses short term and long term transport of insulation debris inside the containment. The short term transport is associated with the initiating event such as pipe whip, pipe impact and jet impingement. For the purposes of the evaluation of paint debris transport, the short term transport was not considered because it was conservatively assumed that all the paint fails.

The long term transport begins at the initiation of the recirculation phase of the post-LOCA operation. Dislodged caint is subjected to a circulating water flow during the operation of the containment recirculation pumps. Fluid velocity, debris density, and debris size were analyzed to determine if long term transport occurs.

This section establishes the transport velocity required to move the ?-int particles.

p.2.1 Paint Transport Velocity Using the basic concepts of NUREG/CR-2791 for inanlation debris, N the transport velocity for paint particles was derived. First, tumbling motion was considered. A model of the forc,es on a cylindrical paint particle with its surface area perpendicular to the water flow was developed (see Figure 6.2-1). FA is the force available to tumble or flip the paint particle so that its surface area will be parallel to the water flow. To tumble, the available force ( Fg ) must exceed the friction between the particle and the floor (ps E g), where N s is the static friction coefficient and F is the force exerted by the paint particle normal to the floor, its weight. To find the minimum velocity to tumble the paint particle, FA was set equal to/fs FN.

=

l 6-2

- e 2 F t = lift force F4 =.Co Ap Pw v 2gc Pw = density of water Fy = (Pm-Pw)'Vg (g/ge)

Pm = density of material Fg_=.O for tumbling per NUREG/CR-2791 Vm = volume of material i =gs (Fg -Fg ) = gs Fu Ap = area normal to flow Ap = 1Tdaf4 _

v = average water velocity VM = (ITda/4)t "

Cp = drag coefficient o (Tid 2/4)Pw v2 =' Pm-Pw) (TIdaf4) p 2 gc d = diameter of particle Equation 1 t = thickness of particle 0*

- Tumble Velocity = v = Ns(Pm-Pw)(t) 2gc g = gravitational force

'- ge = Newton's constant Similarly, .the model for slide velocity was developed as shown on Figure 6.2-2. For a particle to slide, FA should be greater than the force required to move the particle. _The major

. differences in the derivation are that the friction coefficient used is now the dynamic coefficient, _the lift force (F t) will be

. . cqual to (Fg)'and_ areas normal to the flow Ap now equals (det).

~ _Thus, Fg = C D ( d e t) Pw v2 2ge FN 'u'(Pm - Pw)Vg(g/ge)

- Fg=F4 Fg -=gd (Fg- F g)

(1 +gd)~Fg = Md Fg (1 +#d) Co (dat) Pw v2 = Nd (Pm-Pw) (TTd2/4* t) '

2ge -

F -

o. 5

- Slide Velocity = v = gd (Pm-Pw) (Yd/4) 2 yp (1 +gd) CD

• P2 s 6-3

l Tables 6.2-1 through 6.2-9 show the expected transport velocities for several different particles sizes, paint densities, ccatainment conditions, and three particle thicknesses. It should be noted that while the density of each coating used is.

known. in . tdue : dry film, the density of failed particles is not.

, LThe' failed particles' density will include topcoat with all or

.some smaller portion of its primer or concrete surfacers. Thus a regime of failed particle density was conservatively assumed to

. envelope the known individual-material densities. This regime varies from a specific gravity of 1.5 for Reactic 1201 topcoat to 4.0 for-carbozine 11 primer. Failed point particles' thicknesses were also conservatively assumed at 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 mils, which envelopes the lowest acceptable thickness to an almost excessive topcoat thickness. The particle size regime considers particles from 1/16-inch to 128-inch diameter. The sump screen opening size is 1/8-inch; thus a large variety of particle sizes which are capable of blocking the openings were considered. Both the tumble and slide transport valocities were calculated and presented in Tables 6.2-1 through 6.2-9, 6.2-19 and 6.2-20.

Tables 6.2-10 through 6.2 show the effect of varying the friction and drag coefficients. The following conclusions can be drawn from the data presented in these tables:

'

• The thickness of the ' paint particle has no effect on its transport velocity.

• The smaller the paint particle size, the higher is the potential for its transport.

• The greater the relative density difference between the paint and the water, the lower is the potential for transport.

• The higher .the drag coefficient between the paint particle and the moving water, the- higher is the potential for transport.

• Variation in the friction coefficient between paint particle and concrete floor of the containment does not significantly affect the transport velocity.

i 6.2.2 Fine Particle Transport Considerations Effor completeness, the transport velocity for very fine (dust) particles which could be generated from the failure of the

, coating systems was analyzed. Specifically, the behavior of

particles of concrete coating, sand (used as a filler in the concrete surfacer) and zine dust (used in the steel primer) were i cxamined. This analysis provides a quan

itative basis for l cvaluating the safety impact of paint fail 2re other than sump screen blockage.

6-4 4

- , . . _ , , , , , , .-,-,,,s.,,nnn-.,n,.n.,-c,-n-..-w, . m- ,,,_-,.,n.,w,, ,-,n n.,,-, n n_, - -,.n _.n _,,,-,nn

6.2.2.1 Sand in Concrete Coatings The concrete is covered with a thick film coating system consisting'of Nutec 11S, Nutec -11, and Reactic 1201 with a total coating dry film thickness of about 30 mils. The Nutec 11S is different from Nutec 11 in that it has a sand filler material. ,

The sand constitutes approximately 51 weight percent of the dry film and varies in particle size from 30-140 mesh. The transport velocity determination of 20 and 30 mil thick particles of the

previously described density and particle size regimes was performed. This analysis is presented on Tables 6.2-19 and 6.2-20. In addition, for sand particle transport, velocities were- evaluated by varying the sand specific gravity from 1.4 to 2.2. The transport velocities determined are shown on Table 6.2-21.

-6.2.2.2 Zinc in Inorganic Zinc Primer The steel primer for CPSES is a self-curing inorganic zine type coating with about 05 percent by weight of zine in the dry film.

The zine is added as a basic component of the primer in the form of fine dust. The zine dust particle size is commonly 5-10 microns; however, a particle size distribution by sieve analysis shows that particle sizes will vary from two to

.50 microns with the bulk in 5-20 micron range.

Because failure of the steel primer could liberate zine dust particles, a tranport velocity analysis was performed for this

! material. The analysis envelopes the expected particle size and uses both the known density of pure zine (S.G. = 7.1) and the density of the primer dry film (S.G. = 4.0). Due to the extremely small- particle sizes, very small velocities can transport the zine dust.

Table 6.2-22 gives the transport velocities for different parf*cle sizes up to 50 microns.

i l 6.2.3 Paint Transport from Upper Floors l The quantity of paint that can be transported to El. 808'-0" floor-(sump floor) and the location (azimuth) where the paint will be deposited is evaluated. This evaluation is based on the results of the calculations for: water velocities at upper elevations (Section 5.3), paint transport velocities (Section 6.2.1), and the quantity of paint available in each area (Section 6.1).

f The water velocities on the_ upper floors range from 0.3 to 1.2 ft/sec (refer to Tables 5.3-2 and 5.3-3). If velocity the available required to water velocities exceed the critical transport a paint particle, then the particle is conservatively 6-5 i

,,~..g_.,- - _ . _ . , . _ . , .. . . . . _ _ . , _ . . - _ _ . . _ - _ _ . _ . . - . _ . - , . _ . . _ , . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ , , . , . , . . _ , . ~ , , _ ~ .

assumed to be transported towards the sumps. Table 6.2-23 summarizes the results presented in Tables 6.2-1 through 6.2-18.

The data presented in Table 6.2-23 is for very conservatively assumed contaiment water temperature of 200 F (higher temperatures give higher critical velocities for transport). The lowest critical velocity for transport of 0.27 ft/sec is for 1/8-inch-size particles of the Phenoline 305 and Reactic 1201 coatings. The critical velocity for 1/8 inch size, Carbozine 11 particles exceeds 0.57 ft/sec. Also, the critical velocity for transport increases with increase in particle size. The transport velocity for one inch size particles varies from 0.75 to 1.62.

For the purpose of this analysis, a very conservative critical velcocity of 0.27 ft/see was used. This is the lowest value in the table and is based on the assumption that all the paint fails at 1/8-inch particles. Based on this very conservative critical velocity value and the complexity of evaluating accurate flow velocities on the upper floors, it was assumed that all the paint particles from the upper floors are transported to the El. 808'-O" floor (sump level).

The distribution of the paint debris was avaluated based on the flow paths available for transport from the upper floors. The flow paths correspond to the open areas in the upper floors where the curbing is not present. The quantity of paint transported through each opening will be proportional to the water flow through the opening. Tables 6.2-24 and 2.2-25 give the flow openings,- their locations and the quantity of paint debris transported from each of the upper floors. The paint debris from the containment liner is assumed to be uniformly distributed at the 808'-O" elevation. The transport of paint debris on the 808'-O" elevation where the sumps are located is discussed in the following section.

6.2.4 Paint Transport at 808'-0" Elevation Based on the critical velocities for paint transport discussed in l Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 and the available water velocities at the 808'-O" elevation, the transport potential for paint particles was evaluated. As discussed in Section 6.2.3, a very conservative critical velocity of 0.27 ft/sec was used for this ovaluation.

I

! Paint particles in any given zone of the containment were considered to have a potential for transport with the water flow towards the containment sumps if the available water velocity exceeded the critical velocity for transport. Figures 6.2-3 and 6.2-4 show the critical areas on the 808'-0" elevation of the containment, where the paint particles have a potential for transport. The critical areas are marked cross-hatched.

6-6 y __ m- - - , - . - - - , , - - ,_ - , - - - - .--.___,-_,__,--.,e ,,

1 1

Figure 6.2-3 is based on the low water level and Figure 6.2-4 is for high water level. -

For the purpose of this evaluation the following assumptions were used to determine paint transport at the 808'-0" elevation:

a. All the paint at 808'-0" elevation and the paint deposited from the upper levels (discussed in Section 6.2.3) is available for transport within the near sump zone Azimuth 45-0-315 .

b. Paint particles transported from critical areas continue to move from the critical areas until either the particle reaches the sump or enters a zone where the available flow velocity is less than the critical velocity for transport.

c. The water velocities used are based on the low water level in the containment.

d. No credit is taken for possible paint debris hideout at obstructions, corners and curbs.

6-7

3 Fu(Lift)

_> < Thickness l

/l.~

i Uater Flow A t w Fg (Friction)

, / , / '

/

P Fu (Weight)

Side View f h y .

i':x W a t e r F l ot..' I4 If

) I, 1

m _ .

N- .

Plan View FIGURE 6.2-1 TUMBIE TRANSPORT FDDEL l

> R (Lif t) d Thickness i

v Water Flow EA ' N Ag( Fg - FA) (Friction) e

// / / / -' 1' l

1 .

Fe4 (Weigne)

Side View

'N f' , , , .

.,.,g

, ,/ p .

. ., %<X y l;-

q.- ,t,

/,y,' yg/N:.:.?

l$, .:/

f, ..

,i

')

<o. ...S +f.4k.4.;:

. ..w/:~.g;,%',

I '

Water Flow fg 'f. ;p.,; ' ' ,jf/, ,j e s:n. v.,w/.:

i:.y ,x '; , . .. n .'..

.'.-) ' ', /

k,[v y g p,':;j r[

./

Plan View

~

FIGURE G.2-2 SLIDE TENSPORP FDEL

7- -

e a SG 3

~

j

(

SQ-4 S dii l .

. *h FIGURE G.2-3 AREAS TH AT EXCEED CRITICAL VELOCITY @ ELEV. 808'-O" LOW WATER LEVEL TWO TRAINS OPERATING

t I

l q

l l l

l

! S G -3 SG -2 I

P _ - _

l SQ-4 64 1 e

1 1

I F I G U R E 6.2- 4 ,

AREAS THAT EXCEED CRITIC AL l VELOCITY @ ELEV. BO B'-O" HIGH WATER LEVEL Two TRAINS OPER ATING l

rg 6:-

r; TABLE 6.1-1 V:

QUANTITIES OF PAINT IN: CONTAINMENT r

-TOTAL ELEV.808 ELEV.832 ELEV.860 ELEV.905 AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA SQ.FT. SQ.FT. SQ.FT. SO.FT. SO.FT.

______ __________________ = _ = - - - -_

LINER 145000 10174 11869 19076 103882 PLATE-MISCELLANEOUS 188080' 47020 56424 56424 28212

-STEEL (NOTE 1)'

. CONCRETE 285000 111150 85500 85500 2850 SURFACES TOTAL 618080 168344 153793 161000 134944 NOTE 1. INCLUDES ~THE FOLLOWING

HANGERS'- 87300 SQ.FT.

-NSSS EQUIPMENT - 25180-SO.FT.

EQUIPMENT - 34600 SQ.FT.

-CONDUIT SUPPORTS - 38500 SO.FT.

MISCELLANEOUS - 2500 SQ.FT.

y

'1 r-TABLE 6.2-1 l TRANSPORT VELOCT'Y

SUMMARY

PAINT THICKNESS = 10 MILS Cont. pres' PSI. 60 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp-F 307 Fric coef static O.6-Fric coef dynamic O.42 Wster density-Lb/cf 57.0 Viccosity water 0.000073 Thickness Nils 10 SLIDE VELOC)TY fps Paint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 0.131 0.149 0.180 0.219 0.272 Dio.in' ----- - ------ ------

128 9.17 10.46 12.67 15.39 19.08 64 6.48 7.40 8.96 10.88 13.49 32 4.58 5.23 6.33 7.69 9.54 16 3.24 3.70 4.48 5.44 6.75 8 2.29 2.62 3.17 3.85 4.77

-4 1.62 1.85 2.24 2.72 3.37 2 1.15 1.31 1.58 1.92 2.39

.1 0.81 0.92 1.12 1.36 1.69 0.5 0.57 0.65 0.79 0.96 1.19 0.25 0.41 0.46' O.56 0.68 0.84 O.125- O.29 0.33 0.40 0.48 0.60

0.0625 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.34 0.4 r

,e ->r~+, w ,,.p - - , - - - ,---,..--,,n- - - , . - - , - -

TABLE 6.2-2 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

PAINT THICKNESS = 5 MILS Cont. pres PSI 60 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F 307 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Water density Lb/cf 57.0 Viscosity water 0.000073 Thickness Mils 5 c

SLIDE VELOCITY fps Paint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel, fps 0.092 0.105 0.128 0.155 0.192 Dia.in ------ ------

128 9.17 10.46 12.67 15.39 19.08 64 6.48 7.40 8.96 10.88 13.49 32 4.58 5.23 6.33 7.69 9.54 16 3.24 3.70 4.48 5.44 6.75 8 2.29 2.62 3.17 3.85 4.77 4 1.62 1.85 2.24 2.72 3.37 2 1.15 1.31 1.58 1.92 2.39 1 0.81 0.92 1.12 1.36 1.69 0.5 0.57 0.65 0.79 0.96 1.19 0.25 0.41 0.46 0.56 0.68 0.84 0.125 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.48 0.60 0.0625 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.34 0.42

TABLE 6.2-3 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

PAINT THICKNESS = 3 MILS ,

1 Cont. pres PSI 60 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F 3C7 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42

' Water density Lb/cf 57.0 Viscosity water 0.000073 Thickness Mils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps

---

_ . - --------== =-

Paint don. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vol. fps 0.072 0.082 0.099 0.120 0.149 Dia.in ------ ------ ------ --- ------

128 9.17 10.46 12.67 15.39 19.08 64 6.48 7.40 8.96 10.88 13.49 32 4.58 5.23 6.33 7.69 9.54 16 3.24 3.70 4.48 5.44 6.75 8 2.29 2.62 3.17 3.85 4.77 4 1.62 1.85 2.24 2.72 3.37 2 1.15 1.31 1.58 1.92 2.39 1 0.81 0.92 1.12 1.36 1.69 0.5 0.57 0.65 0.79 0.96 1.19 ,

0.25 . O.41 0.46 0.56 0.68 0.04 l 0.125 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.48 0.60 0.0625 0.20 D.23 0.28 0.34 0.42 I

,Y), ,

O y

TABLE 6.2-4 TRANSPORT-VELOCITY

SUMMARY

PAINT THICKNESS = 10 MILS d

' Cont'. pres PSI 20 Drag coef 1.1

' Cont. temp F: 250 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42

Wnter' density _Lb/cf 58.8 Viccosity water 0.000127 Thickness Mils 10 w

SLIDE VELOCITY fps Point den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble. vel.. fps' , .O.125 0.144 0.*175 0.214 0.266 Dio.in~ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

1128 8.78 10.08 12.29 15.00 18.67 64 6.21 7.13 8.69 10.61 13.20 32 - 4.39 -5.04 6.15 7.50 9.33 '

-16 3.'10 3.57 4.35 5.30 6.60

.8 2.19 2.52 3.07 3.75 4.67

'4 1.55. 1.78 2.17 2.65 3.30 2 1.10 1.26 1.54 1.88 2.33

-1 -0.78 0.89 1.09 1.33 1.65 0.5 - 0.55 0.63 0.77. 0.94 1.17 ,

0.25 0.39 0.45 0.54 0.66 0.83

.O.125 O.27 0.32 0.38 0.47 0.58

'O.0625 O.19 O.22 O.27 O.33 O.41 0

O Y

- . . , - . - - , , _ . - _ - . . , - - . - - . - - . . - - . - - , _ ~ . - . . , - - . . . - . , - - - - - .

I TABLE 6.2-5 TRANSPORT VELOCI'Y

SUMMARY

PAINT THICKNESS = 5 MILS Cont. pres PSI 20 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F 250 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Water dee.si6y Lb/cf 58.8 Viscos' ty wa ter 0.000127 Thickness Nils 5 SLIDE VELOCITY fps Paint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble-vol. fps 0.088 0.102 0.124 0.151 0.188 Dia.in ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

128 8.78 10.08 12.29 15.00 18.67 64 6.21 7.13 0.69 10.61 13.20 32 4.39 5.04 6.15 7.50 9.33 16 3.10 3.57 4.35 5.30 6.60 8 2.19 2.52 3.07 3.75 4.67 4 1.55 1.78 2.17 2.65 3.30 2 1.10 1.26 1.54 1.88 2.33 1 0.78 0.89 1.09 1.33 1.65 0.5 0.55 0.63 0.77 0.94 1.17 0.25 0.39 0.45 0.54 0.66 0.83 0.125 0.27 0.32 0.38 0.47 0.58 0.0625 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.41

i TABLE 6.2-6 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

PAINT THICKNESS = 3 MILS

. Cont. pres PSI 20 Drag coef 1.1 Ccnt. temp F 250 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Watcr. density Lb/cf 58.8 ViccasityLwater. 0.000127

. Thickness Mils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps

- - - _- _--.-- ----- ___ . =_---------

Pcint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel.' fps 0.068 0.079 0.096 0.117 0.146

'Dic.in ------ ------ ------ - -- ------

128 8.78 10.08 12.29 15.00 18.67 f 64

< 6.21 7.13 8.69 10.61 13.20 32 4.39 5.04 6.15 7.50 9.33 16 3.10 3.57 4.35 5.30 6.60 8 2.19 2.52 3.07 3.75 4.67 4- 1.55 1.78 2.17 2.65 3.30 2 1.10 1.26 1.54 1.88 2.33 1 0.70 0.89 1.09 1.33 1.65 0.5 0.55 0.63 0.77 0.94 1.17 0.25 0.39 0.45 0.54 0.66 0.83 l O.125 0.27 0.32 0.38 0.47 0.58

! 'O.0625 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.41

9' I l

I l

TABLE 6.2-7 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

PAINT THICKNESS = 10 MILS Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 1.1

= Cont. temp F_ 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Witer-density ~Lb/cf 60.1

.Viccosity water 0.000194

-Thickness Mils 10:

SLIDE VELOCITY fps Pcintfden. lb/cf 90' 100 120 150 200

-Tumble vel .: fps O.121 0.140 0.171 0.210 0.262 Dic.in ' ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

128 8.50 9.82- 12.03 14.73 18.38

~64 6.01 6.94 18 . 5 0 10.42 13.00 32 4.25 4.91 6.01 7.37 9.19

'26 3.00 3.47 4.25 5.21 6.50 8 2.12 :2.45 3.01 3.68 4.59 4 1.50 -1.74 2.13 2.60 3.25

2. 1.06 1.23 1.50 1.84 2.30 1 0.75 0.87 1.06 1.30 1.62 0.5 0.53 0.61 0.75 0.92 1.15 0.25 0.38 0.43 0.53 0.65 0.01 0.125 0.27 0.31 0.38 0.46 0.57

- 0.0625- O.19 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.41

F TABLE 6.2-8 4

TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

PAINT THICKNESS = 5 MILS Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F- 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Water density Lb/cf 60.1 Viccasity water 0.000194

-Thickness Mils 5 SLIDE VELOCITY fps Paint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 0.086 0.099 0.121 0.148 0.185

-- =

Dio.in ===-

---

-=-

128 8.50 9.82 12.03 14.73 18.38 64 6.01 6.94 8.50 10.42 13.00 32 4.25 4.91 6.01 7.37 9.19 16 3.00 3.47 4.25 5.21 6.50 8 2.12 2.45 3.01 3.68 4.59 4 1.50 1.74 2.13 2.60 3.25 2 1.06 1.23 1.50 1.84 2.30 1 0.75 0.87 1.06 1.30 1.62 0.5 0.53 0.61 0.75 0.92 1.15 0.25 0.38 0.43 0.53 0.65 0.81 0.125 0.27 0.31 0.38 0.46 0.57 0.0625 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.41 l

l l

L .

e 1

TABLE 6.2-9 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

PAINT THICKNESS = 3 MILS Cont. pres PSI. 10 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6

• Fric coef dynamic O.42

'Watcr' density.Lb/cf 60.1

'LViccasity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = - - - - - _ -= _ _ - - ____

Point den. lb/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 'O.066 0.077 0.094 0.115 0.143 Die.in ------ ------

e 128 8.50 9.82 12.03 14.73 18.38 64 6.01 6.94 8.50 10.42 13.00 32 4.25 4.91 6.01 7.37 9.19 16 3.00 3.47 4.25 5.21- 6.50 8 2.12 2.45 3.01 3.68 4.59 4 1.50 1.74 2.13 2.60 3.25 2 1.06 1.23 1.50 1.84 2.30

-1 0.75 0.87- - 1.06 1.30 1.62 0.5 0.53 0.61 0.75 0.92 1.15

-0.25 0.38 'O.43 0.53 0.65 0.81 0.125 0.27 0.31 0.38 0.46 0.57 0.0625 O '.' 19 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.41

, - + - - - r - --,,,-,--r er-~ n-- - w w - - - - , - - ,

~

TABLE 6.2-10 1RANSDORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

DRAG COEFFICIENT = 1.5 Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef .

1.5 Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42

~Wnter. density Lb/cf 60.1 Vircosity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps

.Pcint den. lb/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 0.057 0.066 0.080 0.098 0.123

.Dic.in

--- - -= - --- -

128 7.28 8.41 10.30 12.62 15.74

<64 5.15 5.94 7.28 8.92 11.13 32 3.64 4.20 5.15 6.31 7.87 16 2.57 2.97 3.64 4.46 5.56 -

l 8 1.82 2.10 2.57 3.15 3.93 4 1.29 1.49 1.82 2.23 2.78 2 0.91 1.05 1.29 1.58 1.97

l. -1 0.64 0.74 0.91 1.12 1.39 0.5 0.45 0.53 0.64 0.79 0.98 i O.25 0.32 0.37 0.46 0.56 0.70 0.125 0.23 0.26 0.32 0.39 0.4?

O.0625 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.28 0.35

- ~ - - -- ,-=-ee-e ,, q ev--.#---,m-. -w- -m 9~9.em-

--.,-w,---,-9.m-- yw- e'pw r* * - N ** - - - * * * --"'l-

l TABLE 6.2-11 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

DRAG COEFFICIENT = 1.2 Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 1.2 Cont. temp F 200 Fric'coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Wstcr density Lb/cf 60.1 Viecosity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps Point den. Ib/cf- 90 100 120 150 200 Turble vel. fps 0.063 0.073 0.090 0.110 0.137

---

- = -- ------

Dia.in ------ ------

128 8.14 9.40 11.51 14.11 17.60 64 .5.75 6.65 8.14 9.97 12.44 32 4.07 4.70- 5.76 7.05 8.80 16' 2.88 3.32 4.07 4.99 6.22 8 2.03 2.35 2.88 3.53 4.40 4 1.44 1.66 2.04 2.49- 3.11 2 1.02 1.17 1.44 1.76 2.20 1' O.72 0.83 1.02 1.25 1.56 0.5 0.51 0.59 0.72 0.88 1.10 0.25' O.36 0.42 0.51 0.62 0.78 0.125 0.25 0.29 0.36 0.44 0.55 O'0625

. 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.31 0.39 1

w. ..,w-. - . - _ _ . . _ _ . . , , . . . , . , , . . _ . , . - , _,

TABLE 6.2-12 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

DRAG COEFFICIENT = 0.9 Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 0.9 Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Water density Lb/cf 60.1 Viscosity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps

--- __. .=- --. ----- __

Paint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 0.073 ' O.085 0.104 0.127 0.159 Di a. i n -= - ------ ------ ------ - - =

128 9.39 10.85 13.30 16.29 20.32 64 6.64 7.67 9.40 11.52 14.37 32 4.70 5.43 6.65 8.14 10.16 16 3.32 3.84 4.70 5.76 7.18 8 2.35 2.71 3.32 4.07 5.08 4 1.66 1.92 2.35 2.88 3.59 2 1.17 1.36 1.66 2.04 2.54 1 0.83 0.96 1.18 1.44 1.80 .

0.5 0.59 0.68 0.83 1.02 1.27 0.25 0.42 0.48 0.59 0.72 0.90 0.125 0.29 0.34 0.42 0.51 0.63 0.0625 0.21 0.24 0.29 0.36 0.45

'. TABLE 6.2-13 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

DRAG COEFFICIENT = 0.7 Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 0.7 Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Water density Lb/cf 60.1 Viscosity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 3 r

SLIDE VELOCITY fps Paint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 0.083 0.096 0.118 0.144 0.180 Dia.in ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

128 10.65 12.30 15.08 18.47 23.04 64 7.53 8.70 10.66 13.06 16.29 32 5.33 6.15 7.54 9.23 11.52 16 3.77 4.35 5,33 6.53 8.15 8 2.66 3.08 3.77 4.62 5.76 4 1.88 2.18 2.67 3.27 4.07 2 1.33 1.54 1.88 2.31 2.88 1 0.94 1.09 1.33 1.63 2.04 0.5 0.67 0.77 0.94 1.15 1.44 0.25 0.47 0.54 0.67 0.82 1.02 0.125 0.33 0.38 0.47 0.58 0.72 0.0625 0.24 0.27 0.33 0.41 0.51

~ .

TABLE 6.2-14 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

FRIC.COEFF.DYNAM. = 0.1 Cnnt. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F. 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.1 W ter density Lb/cf 60.1 Viccooity water 0.000194 Thickness Hils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps

---

= .-

Point den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 0.066 0.077 0.094 0.115 0.143 Dio.in ------ ------ ------ ------

128 4.71 5.44 6.67 8.17 10.19 64 3.33 3.85 4.71 5.78 7.21 32 2.36 2.72 3.33 4.08 5.09 16 1.67 1.92 2.36 2.89 3.60

-' 2.55 8 1.18 c1.36 1.67 2.04 4 0.83 0.96 1.18 1.44 1.80 2 0.59 0.68 0.83 1.02 1.27 i O.42 0.48 0.59 0.72 0.90 0.5 0.29 0.34 0.42 0.51 0.64 0.25 0.21 0.24 0.29 0.36 0.45 0.125 0.15 0.17 '

0.21 0.26 0.32 0.0625 0.10 0.12 O.15 0.18 0.23

TABLE 6.2-15 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

FRIC.COEFF.DYNAM. = 0.2 Cont. pres PSI 10 Drao coef 1.1 Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.2 Watcr density Lb/cf 60.1 Viccosity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps Point den. Ib/cf 90- 100 120 150 200

-Tumble vel.. fps 0.066 0.077 0.094 0.115 0.143

~Dio.in ------

128 6.38 7.37- 9.03 11.06 13.80 64 4.51 5.21 6.38 7.82 9.76 32 3.19 3.68 4.51 5.53 6.90 16 2.26 2.61 3.19 3.91 4.88 8 1.59 1.84 2.26 2.77 3.45 4 1.13 1.30 1.60 1.96 2.44 2 0.80 0.92 1.13 1.38 1.72 i O.56 0.65 0.80 0.98 1.22 0.5 0.40 0.46 0.56 0.69 0.86 0.25 0.28 10.33 0.40 0.49 0.61 0.125 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.35 0.43 0.0625 0.14 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.30 d

- -..,wmc-. _ , , , - _ , , -_-v.-_-9., __ _m,,_s

.-- - - - -r, . _ ,

l l

TABLE 6.2-16 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

FRIC.COEFF.DYNAM. = 0.3 Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 1.1.

Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.3

.Wntcr density Lb/cf 60.1 Viccasity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 3 4

SLIDE VELOCITY fps Point den..lb/cf 90 100 120 150 200

- Tumble vol. fps 0.066 0.077 0.094 0.115 0.143 Dio.in ------ ------ ------ - - - - - - - - - ---

128 7.51 8.67 10.62 13.01 16.24 64 5.31 6.13 7.51 9.20 11.48 32 3.75 4.34 5.31 6.51 8.12 16 2.65 3.07 3.76 4.60 5.74 8 1.88 2.17 2.66 3.25 4.06 4 1.33 1.53 1.88 2.30 2.87 I 2 0.94 1.08 1.33 1.63 2.03

! 1 0.66 0.77 0.94 1.15 1.43 0.5 0.47 0.54 0.66 0.81 1.01 l 0.25 0.33 0.38 0.47 0.58 0.72 0.125 0.23 0.27 0.33- O.41 0.51 0.0625 0.17 0.19 0.23 0.29 0.36 t

~ - - , -c, . ,-,n - - , - . - - - -- -- .

s TABLE 6.2-17 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

FRIC.COEFF.DYNAM. = 0.5 Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 1.1 LCont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6

- Fric coef dynamic O.5 W3tcr-density Lb/cf 60.1 Viccosity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps-

---

_ = = = - - = - -

-==_ ------

Paint den. ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 0.066 0.077 0.094 0.115 0.143 Dio.in ------ ------ ------

128 9.02 10.42 12.77 15.64 19.51 64 6.38 7.37 9.03 11.06 13.80

-32 4.51 5.21 6.38 7.82 9.76 16 3.19 3.68 4.51 5.53 6.90 8 :2.:26 2.61 3.19 3.91 4.88 4 1.59 1.84 2.26 2.77 3.45 2 1.13 1.30' 1.60 1.96 2.44 1 0.80 0.92 .1.13 1.38 1.72 0.5 0.56 0.65 0.80 0.98 1.22 0.25 0.40 0.46 0.56 0.69 0.86 0.125- 0.28 0.33 0.40 0.49 0.61 0.0625 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.35 0.43 k

l TABLE 6.2-18 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

FRIC.COEFF.DYNAM. = 0.6 Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.6 Water density Lb/cf 60.1 Viscosity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 3 SLIDE VELOCITY fps

• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = - - _ _ = = _

_=----,- ---_________

Paint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 0.066 0.077- 0.094 0.115 0.143 Dia.in ----- ------ ------ ------

128 9.57 11.05 13.54 16.59 20.70 64 6.77 7.82 9.58 11.73 14.63 32 4.78 5.53 6.77 8.30 10.35 16 3.38 3.91 4.79 5.87 7.32 8 2.39 2.76 3.39 4.15 5.17 4 1.69 1.95 2.39 2.93 3.66 2 1.20 1.38 1.69 2.07 2.59 1 0.85 0.98 1.20 1.47 1.83 0.5 0.60 0.69 0.85 1.04 1.29 0.25 0.42 0.49 0.60 0.73 0.91 0.125 0.30 0.35 0.42 0.52 0.65 0.0625 0.21 0.24 0.30 0.37 0.46

l TABLE 6.2-19 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

CONCRETE COATINGS PAINT THICKNESS = 20 MILS Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42

. Wrier density Lb/cf 60.1 Viccasity water 0.000194 Thickness Mils 20

' SLIDE VELOCITY fps

---

=- _---------- = - - - - - - - =

Pcint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel, fps 0.171 0.198 0.242 0.297 0.370 Di o. i n ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

128 8.50 9.82 12.03 14.73 18.38 64 6.01 6.94 8.50 10.42 13.00

.32 4.25 4.91 6.01 7.37 9.19 16 3.00 3.47 4.25 5.21 6.50 8 2.12 2.45 3.01 3.68 4.59 4 1.50 1.74 2.13 2.60 3.25 2 1.06 1.23 1.50 1.84 2.30 1 0.75 0.87 1.06 1.30 1.62 0.5 0.53 0.61 0.75 0.92 1.15 0.25 0.38 0.43 0.53 0.65 0.81 0.125 0.27 0.31 0.38 0.46 0.57 0.0625 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.41 e

- - ,. . - - , . ~ , , . . _ _ . . - , .,n. .,--m,,-,-.,y . , - - . , , . . . , - . . _ . - . , , - . .

TABLE 6.2-20'

, TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

CONCRETE COATINGS PAINT THICKNESS = 30 MILS Cont. pres PSI 10 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Water density Lb/cf 60.1 Viscosity water O.000194 Thickness Mils 30 SLIDE VELOCITY fps

=__ ===----------------------------------

Paint den. Ib/cf 90 100 120 150 200 Tumble vel. fps 0.210 0.242 0.297 0.364 0.454 Dia.in ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

128 8.50 9.82 12.03 14.73 18.38 64 6.01 6.94 8.50 10.42 13.00 32 4.25 4.91 6.01 7.37 9.19 16 3.00 3.47 4.25 5.21 6.50 0 2.12 2.45 3.01 3.68 4.59 4 1.50 1.74 2.13 2.60 3.25 2 1.06 1.23 1.50 1.84 2.30 1 0.75 0.87 1.06 1.30 1.62 0.5 0.53 0.61 0.75 0.92 1.15 0.25 0.38 0.43 0.53 0.65 0.81 0.125 0.27 0.31 0.38 0.46 0.57 0.0625 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.41 n _ n

TABLE 6.2-21 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

SAN 9 PARTICLES Cont. pros PSI 10 Drag coef 1.1 Cont. temp F 200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 Water density Lb/c'f 60.1 Viscosity water 0.000194 SLIDE VELOCIT_f _______-___-------_

ps SAND DENSITY,1b/cf 87.36 112.32 137.28 PARTICLE SIZE, inches men 5 size O.0466 18 O.15 O.21 O.26 O.0365 22 O.14 O.19 O.23 O.0305 26 O.13 O.17 0.21 O.0258 30 O.12 O.16 O.19 0.0175 40 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.0107 60 0.07 0.10 0.12 O.007 80 O.06 0.08 O.10

~

0.005 100 O.05 0.07 O.09 0.0046 120 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.0042 140 0.05 0.06 0.08 O.0038 160 O.04 O.06 O.07 0.0033 180 0.04 0.06 0.07 NOTES

1. Specific gravity of send ab a raw material is considered as 1.4 to 2.2.

TABLE 6. .'-22 TRANSPORT VELOCITY

SUMMARY

ZINC DUST PARTICLES Cont. pres PSI _ 10 Drag coef 1.1 LCont. temp F .200 Fric coef static O.6 Fric coef dynamic O.42 W;tcr density Lb/cf 60.1 Viccasity water 0.000194 SLIDE VELOCITY fps ZINC. DENSITY,1b/cf 443.04 (note 1) 249.6 (note 2)

PARTICLE SIZE, inches microns O.OO1968 50 0.12 - 0.08 0.001374 40 0.11 0.08 C.001181 30 0.09 0.06 0.000787 20 0.08 0.05 0.OOQ590 15 0.07 0.05 0.000393 10 0.05 0.04 0.000196 5 0.04 0.03 0.000098 2.5 0.03 0.02 0.000049 .1.25 0.02 0.01

.O.000024 0.625 0.01 0.01 NOTES

1. Density of zinc dust as a raw material.

2. Density of the dry coating film for inorganic zine pric.cr.

B

, a - - - , - , .~n --w- ,,,,----,-----n ,em,- v--- -.--,,<<,w --,-, ---,-------- , m,y -

, , -,,,v.wr.- - - - - - - , , - - -

TABLE 6.2-23

SUMMARY

OF CRITICAL TRANSPORT VELOCITIES FOR PAINT PARTICLES'18 Velocities (ft/sec) vs

, Particle Size (Inches) i,t . '

Density -

ii Paint lbs/cu.ft. 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 f'

6200<ai Carbozine 11 >0.57 >0.81 >1.15 >1.62 Phenoline 305 90 0.27 0.38 0.53 0.7 Nutec 11- 100'88 >0.31 >0.43 >0.61 >0.8 Reactic 1201 90 0.27 0.38 0.53 0.7 Notes:

(28 At 200 F containment water temperature.

<a> Density 240 lbs/cu.ft.

ca Density ranges from 100 to 128 lbs/cu.ft.

1 i

TABLE 6.2-24 PERIMETERS OF OPENINGS

-ON UPPER ELEVATIONS

^

AZIMUTH 905 860 832 RANGE ELEV ELEV ELEV

-- - --=

9 O-45 0 0 23 45-90 0 0 0 135 0 0 14 135-180 3 6 6

' 180-225- 36 20- 28

'225-270- 23 26 20 270-315 0 22 0 315-360 0 0 19 62 74 110 L

1 i

c-j.-

i 1

{

j ..

l

, . ,, . . _,, ..y ,.,.......__...--,-_....,,y ..,.,ywp_,,,_,,,y,-.,,,-., , ,..,,,_,,,,....._m _ m,w y~ ,~, -

TABLE 6.2-25 COATINGS CONTRIBUTION FROM UPPER ELEVATIONS AZIMUTH. 905 860 832 TOTAL AT 008 RANGE ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV.(NOTE 1)

___________ __m___ ______ ______ ____________

COATINGS 87800 128200 128200 76480 AVAILABLE O-45 0 0 26805 46743 j 45-90 0 0 0 19938

.90-135 0 0 16316 36254 135-180 4248 10395 6993 41573 l 180-225 50981 34649 32633 138200 225-270 32571 45043 23309 120061 270-315 0 38114 0 58051 315-360 0 0 22144 42081 TOTAL PAINT IN THE NEAR ,

RSUMP ZONE (AZIMUTH O/45 AND 360/315)  : 88824 NOTE 1. CONTRIBUTION FROM LINER PLATE UP TO THE SPRING LINE AND PAINT AT THE 808 ELEV. ARE INCLUDED. .

.7.0 INSULATION DEBRIS L,F,NERATION 7.1 Types of Insulation Most of the thermal insulation inside the containment on both piping and equipment is of the reflective metallic type, composed of stainless steel. The high efficiency metallic thermal insulation is composed of fibrous media and very fine heat resistant particulate matter, totally encased in stainless steel.

All antisweat insulation is fiberglass encapsulated in metal casing and is used on cold water piping.

All metallic insulation, with .the exception of the reactor coolant pipe insulation inside the primary shield concrete, is designed to remain in place during an SSE. Figure 7.1-1 shows a typical metallic insulation for piping. Figure 7.1-2 shows the cross-section of a typical metallic insulation. Figure 7.1-3 shows the- clamping arrangement for holding the metallic insulation panel in place. Table 7.1-1 gives the major dimensions, and thickness of each component.

The r 'eflective metallic insulation assemblies are designed to withstand seismic forces resulting from acceleration of 3g in both hori=ontal directions and 3g in the vertical direction caused by the SSE. The insulation structural mounting frames and panel attachments to the mounting frames are designed to maintain their structural integrity during the SSE.

Sample panels of insulation were tested to confirm the design.

In order to verify that the insulation meets the required seismic criteria, the insulation supplier has tested a typical assembly on a generic basis. The tests consisted of an_ initial sinusoidal input frequency between 3 and 100 Hz to determine the resonant frequency condition followed by an endurance test at the lowest resonant frequency. The insulation assembly was subjected to 10g's in both the horizontal and vertical directions. No damage or distortion to the structure was observed.

A series of pressurization tests were also performed to ensure that the insulation maintains its structural integrity under i

post-accident pressures as well as containment structural

ccceptance test and leakage rate test pressures. A thermal transient test was performed on sample insulation panels to j cnsure that the insulation maintains its structural integrity

! during post-accident temperature transients. This test consists l of heating the sample panel to 650 F and quenching it with cold

! water.

t i

l 1

l 7-1

k. a 4 - h--.- u_. +- = M 4 -w.4 y a. ,- - .---aea 44- e4 -a.a ---a, me.ap-.-wa + r*a-ma+a-w i

7.2 Insulation Debris Generation ,

7.2.1 Identification of Accident The initiating events for the insulation debris are the postulated LOCAs described in the FSAR. The design basis pipe break locations, their orientations, and their sizes have been determined. With this identification, an enveloping process was 4- undertaken to locate breaks which have maximum potential for

-unacceptable. debris generation. The following criteria were used to-isolate the non-critical breaks for this evaluation:

i Breaks with barriers interposed between the break and the t

containment sumps were not considered if no flow path exists which would allow the transport of debris to the sumps.

[

Breaks for which the expanding fluid jet does not impinge on insulated targets were not considered.

l Small diameter breaks in the same location and with effects

.1 similar to large diameter breaks were not considered.

Analysis of longitudinal failures was required only in those cases whose postulated circumferential pipe failures do not i j target large areas of containment with insulated targets.

The mechanisms which were postulated for insulation debris generation are:

o Jet Impingement j o Pipe Whip o Pipe Impact

Jet Impingement: Jet impingement is the most significant of I the debris generation mechanisms for insulated pipe. All targets that intercept the jet resulting from the selected

, breaks were investigated. It was assumed, for conservatism, that all fibrous insulation within the vicinity of the break I being investigated was dislodged and available for transport to the containment sumps. This is more conservative than NUREG/CR2791 which assumes that'any insulation subject to a stagnation force in excess of 0.5 psi will result in j dislodgement from the pipe.. Further, NUREG/CR-2791 assumes

the jet from the break covers a certain spray angle. For l

'this report, it was conservatively assumed that all fibrous t insulation in the break area is affected.

For reflective metallic insulation, one worst case primary f coolant loop break in steam generatoy compartment #4 was 7-2 i

l.

selected and evaluated for debris generation. Steam generator compartment #4 is the closest area to the sumps where- such coolant. pipe breaks can be postulated.

Figure 7.2-1 shows the coolant loop postulated break locations for. steam generator compartment #4. Break #7 in the hot leg pipe was determined to be the worst case for this evaluation. This makes- the choice of this break the worst case for insulation transport and sump blockage potential.

In addition the quantity of metallic insulation released was assumed to be from all the piping and equipment in this compartment- except the topmost section of the steam generator.

! The .second category of worst case break considered for

. -reflective metallic-insulation was on the reactor coolant

. loop cold leg in . steam generator compartment #4. It is a 10-inch branch line from the safety injection system.

Figure 7.2-2 shows this break location. The jet portion and t the targets were analyzed as part of the CPSES damage study of problem #DSI-17D, break #756 LWR. The damage to the metallic insulation was calculated using all the components and piping within the jet impingement area up to 50 ft.

Pipe Whip: All insulation on the ruptured segs.ent between the break location and the plastic hinge constitutes debris. r However, for CPSES Unit 1 containment, the high energy lines are not insulated with fibrous insulation. Therefore, this concern does not have to be addressed for this type of i- insule. tion. For' high efficiency insulation, where the

insulation is wedged between the pipe whip restraint and the pipe, it is not possible for the insulation to be dislodged as a result of pipe whip. Therefore, no insulation debris will be created as a result of the pipe whip for fibrous and

. high efficiency insulation. The -worst case pipe breaks considered for metallic insulation have pipe restraints which e prevent pipe whip.

l Pipe Impact: NUREG/CR-2791 assumes that five fabrication i lengths of insulation on the impacted pipe are dislodged.

t This includes two lengths upstream and two lengths downstream >

of the impact point, and one length at the point of impact.

For this analysis, as discussed above, all fibrous insulation in the vicinity of the break is dislodged. Again, this is

. more conservative than the NUREG/CR-2791 assumptions. No high-efficiency insulation debris can be generated by this mechanism. No metallic insulation is released by pipe impact because of the pipe restraints used to prevent pipe impact.

l A field walkdown was performed in the containment of Unit 1 to i i determine which breaks had the greatest potential for generation of insulation- debris. Twenty high energy pipe breaks were t

)

7-3  :

i I

O J

+.~.,~.,-v,r-s ,,~.,,,.,,,c.-.,,--, ,- - ,-.--,g e..,_-- - ,-m-w,,,,. ,ww,-,%,.,,,,,,._ . ,. % - ,,p y-.,._-

selected for further investigation. The evaluation concentrates on the breaks which generate the. maximum amount of debris and where debris transport to the sump is relatively direct. Two of the breaks release reflective metallic insulation and also cause activation of safety injection and containment sprays. The other breaks release fibrous insulation. The quantity of fibrous insulation used inside containment is limited to component cooling water and chilled water piping. This type of insulation is not located in any of the containment areas where high energy large breaks can release this insulation material to form debris.

None of the breaks in the vicinity of the fibrous insulation are of the magnitude which would cause the activation of the safety injection or containment sprays. Therefore, the availability of the safeguards sumps is not required and sump blockage is not a concern. The quantities of debris generated are presented in Tables 7.2-1 through 7.2-5 for information purposes only.

High efficiency insulation was also evaluated. This insulation, which is a mineral wool type, 1/4-inch thick, is fully encapsulated in 1/8-inch thick sheeting of type 304 SS. The insulation is located at pipe whip restraints and in the gap between the restraints and the pipe.

7.2.2 Quantity of Insulation Debris The quantities of fibrous insulation generated from various postulated breaks are shown on Tables 7.2-1 through 7.2-5. Short term transport of fibrous insulation was not analyzed because it was assumed to be transported to the sumps.

In the case of high efficiency insulation, it was conservatively assumed that insulation from five pipe whip restraints of safety injection pipes would be dislodged as a result of jet impingement from a pipe break. This resulted in the generation of about 40 square feet of high efficiency insulation.

The quantities of metallic insulation generated from the postulated breaks are shown on Tables 7.2-6 and 7.2-7.

Table 7.2-6 is for primary coolant hot leg break. For purposes of this analysis reactor coolant loop breaks are not postulated as credible in view of the generic work done by Westinghouse regarding alternate pipe break criteria. For the purposes of this evaluation for debris effects, metallic insulation quantities given in Table 7.2-7 were used. These quantities are based on worst case break external to the reactor coolant loop.

The metallic insulation debris generated by this break produced the maximum quantity of debris. NUREG-0897 Rev 1 (Draft) and NUREG/CR-3616 discuss the transport of metallic insulation materials. This information is based on experimental work done at Alden Research Laboratories during the second half of 1983.

Based on these experiments, it is postulated by Alden Research 7-4

that metallic insulation inner foil can be transported at very low velocities.

In view of this new information, further evaluations were made for metallic insulation debris, its damage potential, and transport to the sump screens. In accordance with the recommendations of NUREG-0897 Revision 1 (Draft), it was postulated that all insulation within 7 pipe diameter lengths from the break will be completely destroyed to open up the metallic insulation. Figure 7.2-1 shows a typical metallic insulation section with all the sub-components. Table 7.2-8 gives the quantities of insulation that will be damaged in this manner and the area of the inner foil that will be released.

The short term transport of metallic insulation for this break does not have a direct pathway to the door openings in the steam generator compartments. However, for a conservative evaluation, it was assumed that all the insulation released in this manner will be propelled by the jet through the doorway for steam generator compartment #1.

i I

t 7-5

l 7.3 Insulation Transport The methodology described in this report ie based on NUREG/CR-2791 and NUREG/CR-2982 Rev. 1. The evaluatior of long term transport of debris involves only the metallic insulation because, (as discussed in Section 7.2.2) the fibrous insulation will not cause debris during a LOCA and ,the high efficiency insulation will sink to the floor.

The transport of the insulation debris occurs in two phases. The first phase relates to the transport of debris caused by the initiating event, such as pipe whip and jet impingement. This mechanism of transport is normally a transient, terminated by dislodging of all the insulation in the affected zone.

The second phase of transport begins with the recirculation of the sump water and continues as long as the ECCS recirculation is active.

Following a LOCA and the initiation of the ECCS, the containment will be flooded with water. All the water used for the initial phase of the ECCS is provided from the refueling water storage tank. At the end of this phase of ECCS operation, the water collected in the containment sumps is recirculated.

- The transport mec'hanism for the debris is complex because of the various flow paths and hydraulic resistances present in the containment. In order to simplify the methodology, various assumptions were made to produce conservatively limiting conditions which reflect the long term debris transport. The major assumptions were:

a. Water cascading from the point of coolant loss and the containment spray will eventually flow to the l containment sumps.

b. No stagnant areas exist within containment.

c. The force required to transport debris is a resultant of the friction between the debris and the floor, the normal force exerted by the debris and the buoyancy force.

7-6

7.3.1- Transport Evaluation 9

The ;1ong- term transport evaluation for insulation material was done by a step-by-step methodology using the following criteria:

Step-1 Determine the flow of water to various zones in the containment during-the recirculation phase of the ECCS and containment spray operation.

Step-2. Determine the minimum water l'evel inside the containment

.for the postulated accident.

Step-3 Calculate flow velocities for each path to the ECCS sump inside the containment. The calculation is based on using open channel flow equations. The flow is apportioned to each parallel path based on equal pressure drops for each flow path.

Step-4 Using the flow velocities established in Step-3, determine the maximum velocity in each zone.

Section 5.0 of this report discusses flow velocities.

-Step-5 If the~_ velocity calculated in Step-4 is less than the velocity required to move the metallic insulation, then the debris will not be transported to the sump screens.

. Step-6 Based on the evaluation in Step-5. the quantity of insulation transported to the sump screens and the i resulting sump affects are evaluated as discussed in Section 9.O.  ;

i I' The containment water levels are presented in Table 5.2-1 and flow velocities for each zone are presented in Tables 5.3-1 ,

through 5.4-12 and 5.4-1.

{ Transport- of insulation debris is dependent on, the flow f velocities inside the containment. The flow velocities at I

various zones inside the containment were calculated in Section 5.4. Table 7.3-1 summarizes'these velocities in the sump ,

zones. These velocities were calculated at'high water level and -

-low water level for one and two train ECCS system operation. The

~

worst. case for analysis will be the case which gives highest  :

L velocities, i.e., low water level and two train operation. >

. The fibrous insulation which can be released as debris is quantified in Section 7.2.2 (refer Tables 7.2-1 through 7.2-5).

1Due accident scenarios for the fibrous insulation debris are all j chort term transients, which will not cause containment spray or j ECCS system pumps to go into recirculation mode. Therefore, there will not be any. requirement for the performance of 7-7

emergency sumps. In the absence of recirculation flow, the velocities of water at the sump level (EL 808.0 ft) will be essentially zero and no motion of debris can be postulated.

. Based on this evaluation, it was concluded that the fibrous insulation debris will not reach the sump and impact the safety of the plant.

The small quantity (40 sq.ft.) of high efficiency insulation (refer to Secticn 7.2.1) will not be transported to the sumps because it is fully encapsulated in 1/8-inch stainless steel sheeting. The maximum water velocity for.any zone at the sump elevation (EL 808 ft) is less than 0.7 ft/sec and the minimum velocity required to transport this material is 2 ft/sec in accordance with NUREG-0869 and NUREG/CR-2791 (page A-23).

The quantity of metallic insulation calculated to be released is given in Tables 7.2-6 and 7.2-7. It was very conservatively assumed that the metallic insulation is transported through door openings to areas outside the steam generator compartment. The maximum velocity in the near sump areas of the containment is conservatively calculated to be 0.38 ft/sec at low water icvel and 0.30 ft/sec at high water level (refer Table 7.3-1). Using guidance frcm NUREG-0869, it was postulated that the metallic insulation will not be transported to the sumps because the water velocities inside the containment where metallic insulation debris is generated (zones 3 and 4) is considerably less than 2.0 ft/sec. In accordance with NUREG-0897 (dated April 1983) cvaluation procedure, it was concluded that the metallic insulation will not be transported to the sump screens.

However, in view of the more recent information provided by NUREG-0897 Rev 1 (draft June 1984) and NUREG/CR-3616, more detailed study of the metallic insulation transport was performed in this evaluation.

7-8

The findings of the Alden Research Laboratory test data reported in NUREG-0897 Rev 1 and NUREG/CR-3616 are discussed below:

a. Transport velocities of metallic insulation components:

1) Single sheets of thin stainless steel materials (such as the 0.0025 - 0.004 inch thick foils used within reflective metallic insulation units) are transported at relative low water velocities, 0.2 - 0.5 ft/sec.

2) "As fabricated" reflective metallic insulation units required water velocities of 1.0 ft/see or more for transport.

3) For all tested insulation material, transport of the test specimen was much slower than the flow velocity.

4) When several pieces of foil were tested simultaneously and interacted before reaching the screen, the group of foils ceased movement at the low flow velocities which had sustained motion of the individual foil pieces. Higher velocities, up to 1.8 ft/sec, were required to break up the group of foils and again initiate movement of individual foils.

5) The vertical side walls of the test fiume were observed to hinder the transport of samples.

Samples in contact with a wall were often pushed and folded against it, needing higher flow velocities to be dislodged.

6) Outer covers (0.037 inch thick) - When lying on the floor with their concave side up, the outer covers of the insulation units started to move at a flow velocity of approximately 0.7 ft/see and moved continuously to, the screen at a flow velocity of approximately 0.8 ft/sec. When lying with their concave side down, the outor covers did not move at a flow velocity of 1.8 ft/sec.

7) Inner covers - When lying with their concave side up, the inner covers moved at a flow velocity of approximately 0.7 ft/sec and reached the screen at a flow velocity of approximately 0.8 ft/onc. With the covers lying concave sido down, those velocities were respectively 1.1 and 1.6 ft/sec.

7-9

8) End Covers - The end covers never moved, even at the highest fiume flow velocity of approximately 2 ft/sec.

b. Transport and Blockage Modes

1) Thin foils (0.0025 - 0.004 inch thick) transported in an intermittent folding and tumbling manner, whether originally crumpled or not. Depending on the position and shape of the foils just upstream from the screen, the foils would either flip onto the screen to their full area or be pressed onto the screen in a folded position.

2) Neither the flexible thin foils, nor the relatively stiffer foils, ever became " water borne." A portion of the foil was always in contact witn the test fiume floor. Thereform, the screen was never blocked beyond the foil width or length. If thi foil blocked the screen diagonally, the highest blockage would be the diagonal of a foil sheet.

3) Total blockage of tha screen did not occur even when the total foil area in a given test was somewha*. more than twice the wetted screen area.

The maximum screen blockage observed was 80%. This factor is mainly due to the significant foil overlap that occurred in the screen blockage pattern.

Table 7.3-2 summarizes the findings of Alden Research Laboratories reported in NURE0/CR-3616.

The worst case water velocities in the near sump zones where metallic insulation debris is deposited (azimuth 60-3008) are less than 0.42 ft/sec. It can therefore be concluded that the only material which has any potential for transport of damaged components of metallic insulation will be the inner foils. The following discussion evaluates the transport potential for metallic insulation inner foil.

The quantity of inner foil that can be released is given in Table 7.2-8 (refer Caction 7.2.2). The worst location of the foils at the end of short term transport resulting from the initiating event will be outside doorways from steam generator compartments 1 and 4. These areas correspond to channel no. 3 sub-channel A for steam generator conpartment 1 and channel no. 4 sub-channel A for steam generator compartment D.

From Table 7.3-1, it can be seen that the worst case water flow velocities (low water level and 2 trains in operation) are 7-10 4

0.15 ft/sec at channel 3-A and 0.12 ft/sec at Channel 4-A. These two channel areas are relatively large areas 22 to 24 ft long with 128 to 144 sq.ft of flow area. Since the velocity required to transport the foil to the screens is 0.35 ft/sec (refer Table 7.3-2, ite.m 5 ) , it can be concluded that the inner foils will not be tranported to the screens. These foils will accumulate in the Channel 3A and 4A areas and tend to cluster into multiple foils and remain staticnary.

7-11 l

. v e.. .

~. - ..-; ...

v-. y ?. v u u +. v e a: x ,. . m . > e -s '-

v 'i n

• m" ; :

1 4

- -w I(Nde

~

p.. & , N

+

1?J r ,.

END COVER V4 = - .s .

%- ., y 47

-c. .' A,

.n  ;

J,.- e ..

7- ., g %d .

-' @. .y M. o. _.!.; :--4 -HALF SECTION CL A MP %. * ' I tt g 7 .}

r .,;. , l .x

-n-

~

l .i 50,a t -

% '3. '; ~yg e

i T:4r gp . .

-73

+g.

FIGURE 7.l-l REFLECTIVE METALLIC INSULATION ASSEMBLY s s

+ Xy .

r d"

'l  :. .

, il g s

4 g

~ '

ts .

~

ter- w- 't 4

...'*1.

, d h

l 3MY #

E

8 - J e

m INNER CASE

_ . M -4%* h a

^

_ _ eg F .6 -

pj

=

tiNemscroiu3

~'

h l t- 8'

• .^

- SPACI MQ i -+.. .c. . . . .

, ,. -u. -

a

( b *..

s k n T.<1;

'.;: i L'S = ouTEla CASE.

• .  : (w..

+* ".

4.:: ze. c.*. > ,

?jmf $_ *q I. ,1 / , ,l t'Ell6-$l "F

l&*.;.',

,*.' .* gs ,

y/>

c IITG- -Q7N t%d

%% . . 5 > , .. ? W

.Wlr&y. ' + 4::::: W .

$~4> . .. u

\

"f ?.,l;,si,

% . , ;, . - *i'] 's s */ .4 .

l

{k <r A '.'- -* 0:~ ' ' W f C.R[54: f 4. 's, W e .a .. . w W kly ' ?. ~ .'!' Y> '% W  ;

i EMD COVE 17.

FIGURE 7. l-2 CROSS SECTION OF INSULATION ASSEMESLY l

1 t

f .-- : f E

~~

T .

, ,. oi m .m E.90s o* bb PLAN VIEW mi, 1-140L0 4 g v,4 a VOWN ii

~5 TRAPS <>>

ro k4 0 -

I

+#

AM D 3 -NO.12. 'h a'

..uy. <, '8 .

TAP PI 4 Gi S C R.EvJS 8

S.0Q7 3.coI 9.00'. _f i

N I i b' li

• f Ak30 Lg3CW:.- ap _ p'

.p'. .p" . . *I W AS H E.RS --t

• i d Of -!!- -ii- -i!- 94F id 1 , g;t;i.,

N ELEVATIOh! IND V t EW FIG U R E 7, l- 3 METALLIC INSULATIOM PAMEL 9

___m_______._ _ _ . - - ---

i i ii ii ' ' '

4 RC.I-075 250er.e th RC I- c19 290ie.

4 WOT[3St 9- RC-l- OWo- r 5 o i R -t i. At.. easAir.5 ACO ciairA>

3 FERENTIAt. AND ARE N _ --

g* s o- ac- i-o,a - 25 ci a-i %

7

'# Riceer assTuriwso To gu t ,, su'Tse , ***g I

\ / /

%d, ,,

\n ac asosn-s - \/ $//

kj YcTdih"di"

~

g M s"N /

=.=s d 14 rc-l-isS 25oin i

[ REAcTom b0 Tav.- Rc ec = v #4 W -

'^

e

r% "4 g

. sTe Au ceu.uu rac e,cecsc

-w .s l r-ec-i-evr-rsoie-i 12 RC 0( 9 2508 R-t - # , g e a -

e w '

,,Q /

em CD-sek woTe FIC,O R E T. 2 - 1 .

REACTOR COOLAK1T LOOP kb. 4 '

BREAK PolNTS AND RESTRAINT LOCATiohlS

i l

\ N 75G hh (0=vasnutut port Omf.

l*(-'0*="'"

,,......., .<.,.i 66-e-e 42 90s. C e twj f

MARO Atstmatuts gO'g.9 159- s-092.toS-C a tu l g

is 9,v'

u _./of 1

~

[ .....

s.

a94 it IO.et4 078.ISOt8 0 8 ML og gs.t.s ta-250848 0 'O 93 -, og to2 terwl 5 'i

__,0.....,0..

IeC #-o f t 903 (4Fw y

e. st.o.sa2-902 carul

p. ,

=y .

ACCumut.Af f ama MO 04

=

<c> ,.....,....., /

,,g,0..u.OO-. .0.......0..,

to.St.a.404 25005 2 38 26.p eJ CONF.SIE

[F O.R. Ft 360 57 ps ,u,0. ._ ..t0-uma ue m m.ue-' e t0 .. . .. .....

. e o .c o. . . . . . . ... .

O ==<= ~ --'

U = ~ = *n'= '=*

l - ... . .

Rr FIGURE 7.2-2 PROBLEM DSl-17D SAFETY IN'dECTION SYSTEM BREAK POINT AND RESTRAINT LOCATIONS o

- --,vw - - - - -

END COVER n

36" INNER FOIL 0.004" THICK n /rfsit &

INNER COVER 0.019" THICK OUTER COVER 0.037" THICK v /

b A SPOT WELDED ALL AROUND (PIPE DIAMETER)

PI PE DI A.+ INSUL.THICKhl'S.

FIGURE 7. 2-3 SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF REFLECTIVE METALLIC INSULATION UNIT O

w- - - .+ E . - - ~ - -

TABLE 7.1-1 INSULATION PANEL DIMENSIONS ITEM THICKNESS (INCHES)

Outer Case 0.037 Inner Case 0.019 Liners 0.004 Liner Spacing 0.33 Disc (End Cover) 0.019 Laps (Ends) 0.037 e---

~

TABLE 7.2-1 FIBROUS INSULATION TAKE OFF

• DRAWING NO. 2323-M1-0507 Feet of Square .

Case Line Insulated Feet of No. Location Size Pipe Insulation 1 El. Below 860'-O" 3" 31 40.6 Southwest Quadrant 6" 68 142.4 Total 183.0 2 El. Below 860'-O" 3/4" 43 31.0 Northeast Quadrant 1" 29 22.8 2" 74 77.5 3" 163 213.2 4" 141 221.4 6" 109 228.2 Total 794.1 3 El. Below 860'-O" 3/4" 20'-O 14.4 Northeast Quadrant 2" 3'-0 3.1 3" 97'-O' 126.9 4" 160'-0 251.2 Total 395.6 4 Part Plan 3/4" 17'-O 12.3 El. 842'-0" 2" 44'-O 46.0 c.

Wall 3" 20'-O 26.2 4" 185'-0 290.5 Total 375.0 i

., _ . , , . . - - - . _ . . , , , ,,._,._...-,.,,.,...,,,__.._,,_,,,_,,,,m._, ,...,m. . _ _ . - _ . . . _ . - . . . , _ _ , - _ . . _ _ ,

TABLE 7.2-2 FIBROUS INSULATION TAKE OFF DRAWINGS NO. 2323-M1-0511 Feet of Square Case Lira Insulated Feet of No. Location Size Pipe Insulation 1 El. Above 832'-6" 3/4" 20 14.4 0* Near Cont. 1" 21 16.5 Wall 2" 65 68.1 3" 16 20.9 4" 172 270.0 l 8" 50 130.9 Total 521 2 El. Above 832'-6" 3/4" 32 23 315* Azimuth 1" 11 8.6 2" 38 40.0 3" 52 68.1 4" 126 197.8 6" 115 240.7 8" 26 68.0 Total 646 3 El. Above 832'-6" 3/4" 38 27.3 19* Azimuth 1" 10 7.8 2" 37 38.7 3" 46 60.2 4" 111 174.3 8" 12 31.4 Total 340 -

l TABLE 7.2-3 FIBROUS INSULATION TAKE OFF DRAWING NO. 2323-M1-0511-01 Feet of Square Case Line Insulated Feet of No. Location Size Pipe Insulation 1 El. Below 832'-6" 1" 40 31.4 ,

Northwest Quadrant '

of Cont. Total 31.4 2 31. Below 832'-6" 1" 22 17.3 West Side of Cont. 2" 51 53.4 Total 70.7 3 El. Below 832'-6" 1" 5 4.0 Southwest Quadrant 2" 66 69.2 of Cont. 4" 91 142.9 Total 216.1 G

9

TABLE 7.2-4 FIBROUS INSULATION TAKE OFF DRAWING NO. 2323-M1-0513 Feet of Square Case Line Insulated Feet of No. Location pize Pipe Insulation 1 El. Below 836' 1-1/2" 2 2.0 '

Reactor Coolant Pump No. 01 2" 37 38.8 Total 40.8 2 El. Below 836' 1-1/2" 2 20 Reactor Coolant Pump No. 02 2" 44 46.0 Total 48.0

.3 El. Below 836' 1-1/2" 2 2.0 Reactor Coolant Pump No. 03 3" 30 39.3 Total 41.3 l 4 El. Below 836' 1-1/2" 2 2.0 Reactor Coolant Pump No. 04 2" 23 24.1 Total 26.1

TABLE 7.2-5 FIBROUS INSULATION TAKE OFF DRAWING NO. 2323-M1-0513-01 Feet of Square Case Line Insulated Feet of No. Location Size Pipe Insulation 1 El. 835'-0" Stm. 3/4" 51 36.8 Gen. No. 1 Compt. 2" 11 11.6 3" 90 117.8 4" 15 23.6 Total 189.8 2 El. 836'-0" Stm. 3/4" 38 27.4 Gen. No. 4 Compt. 2" 44 46.1 3" 144 188.3 4" 7 11.0 Total 272.8 3 El. 836'-O" Stm. 3/4" 44 31.7 Gen. No. 2 Compt. 2" 11 11.6 3" 95 124.3 4" 11 17.3 I

Total 184.9 4 El. 836'-O" Stm. 3/4" 56 40.4 Gen. No. 3 Compt. 3" 138 180.6 4" 12 18.9 Total 239.9

TABLE 7.2-6 METALLIC INSULATION DAMAGE FROM R.C. LOOP PIPE BREAK STEAM GENERATOR COMPT. NO. 4 No. of Area Foil Piping or Ecuip. Damaged (ft2) Liners Stm. Gen. No. 4 2670 10 R.C. Pump No. 4 328 13 27 1/2" Cold Leg 71.43 10 29" Hot Leg 132.47 13 31" Crossover 325.42 14 Containment Spray 62.60 5 RTD 61.52 7 Feed Water 346.16 5 Miscellaneous Piping:

Reactor coolant 601.87 5-10 Residual heat 61.02 3 Safety injection removal 25.66 2 Main Steam 153.19 5&8 Total 4839.34 ft2 Total area of insulation foil = 46,600 ft 2

TABLE 7.2-7

~

METALLIC INSULATION DAMAGE FROM 10" R.C. PIPE BREAK STEAM GEN. COMPT. NO. 4 No. of Area Foil Piping or Equio. Damaged (ftz) Liners Stm. Gen. No. 6 46.70 10 29" Hot Leg 132.47 13 RC Pipe 18.77 10 -

SI Piping 7.26 2 MS Pipe 3.04 5 Total 89.49 fta , ,

Total area of insulation foil = 815.64 ft2

/

l TABLE 7.2-8 REFLECTIVE METALLiO INSULATION LOCATED WITHIN 7 PIPF DIA. OF JET FROM PIPE BREAK */56 LWR _-

Line No. Area Hit No. of or Equip. By Jet Foil Liners 1-RC-1-156-2501R-2 2.072 ft2 7 1 1/2-SI-1-202-2501R-1 .548 ft2 2 STM. GEN. #4 6.925 ft2 10 Total 9.545 ft2 Total foil area - 84.85 fta 8

O t .

.sp :

. . - . - -x

TABLE 7.3-1 WATER VELOCITIES IN CHANNELS APPROACHING THE SUMPS (ft/sec)

Water Level High Low Channel (1) Sub-Channeli2) One Two One Two No. No. Train Trains Train Trains 3 A 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.15 3 -

B 0.09 0.18 0.12 0.25 4 A O.04 0.09 0.06 0.12 4 B 0.15 0.30 0.21 0.42 4 C O.06 0.11 0.08 0.16 Notes:

1. See Figure 5.4-1 for the channel locations

2. See Figure 5.4-4 for the sub-channel locations l

l l

l l

TABLE 7.3-2 .

TRANSPORT AND BLOCKAGE TEST RESULTS

^

Velocity Velocity to to initiate transport Sample motion to screen Description (ft/sec) (ft/sec) Comments

?

1. Undamaged unit (half assembly) concave side up 1.0 1.0 Either flipped on screen or .

got stuck par-tially flipped concave side down above 2.2 Never moved.

2. Outside Cover (0.037" thick) ._

concave side up O.7 0.8 Same blockage '

mode as un-damaged units.

concave side down above 1.8

3. Inside Cover _

(0.015" thick) concave side up O.7 0.8 With both initial -

concave side down 1.1 1.6 positions, covers flipped against the screen on arrival and got flattened against it by the flow force.

t m.

i.I. .m., _ . . . ,_m m _I

~

Table 7.3-2 (Continued)

Velocity Velocity to to initiate transport Sample motion to screen Description (ft/sec) (ft/sec) Comments

4. End Covers above 2 Never moved.

5. 0.0040 inch foil (36 x 36 inches) uncrumpled 0.25 0.40 Folding and tumbling transport mode, occasionally sliding.

Flips on screen upon arrival, often folded.

crumpled 0.25 0.35 Folding and tumbling or sliding transport mode.

multiple sheets 0.25 0.9 to Foil (2 crumpled 1.1 interactions 2 uncrumpled) often create jams needing higher velo-cities to break up.

Signficant overlapping on screen.

Blockage up to about 80% observed.

8.0 NEAR SUMP EFFECTS This section of the report summerizes the results of analyses conducted to study the behavior of paint flecks which become dislodged in the event of paint f a ilure and fall to the surface of the pool of water existing at tne containment lower floor during the post-LOCA recircul' tion mode.

As will be evident from the results of these analyses, only paint which is located near the ECCS sumps or can be washed to the pool surface in the vicinity of the sumps (including the paint on the containment liner segment defined between the azimuthal angles of 30 and 339 which can be washed down by the action of the containment spray water) has the potential for adversely affecting the performance of the sump.

This section of the report is subdivided into two subsections.

The first subsection addresses the theories employed to describe the motion of the paint particles through the pool of water. The second subsection considers the propensity for particles reaching the screen to stick to it and result in partial or full clogging of the ECCS sump fine screens.

8.1 Motion of Paint Fragments Through the Pool of Water

a. Introduction Motion of paint fragments through the pool water is affected by many parameters including fragment size, shape, density, and water velocity. In general, however, the principal characteristics of the fragment mocion are related to the local Reynolds number and the fragment mass moment of inertia.

For very low local Reynolds numbers (N g <1. 0 ) , paint fragments (herein idealized as thin disks) will move through the water maintaining their original orientation, i.e., the pitch angle with which they begin their descent through water. This particular type of behavior can be described by a theory which maintains the initial angle of the fragment constant throughout its descent through the water. Since the local Reynolds number is defined as:

N q-_ NA/

d where W is the particle relative velocity (relative to the water), d is the fragment (disk) diameter, and V is the kinematic viscosity of water, values of Np less equal to one exist only in regions of low fragment velocity and/or virtually stagnant pool conditions. These conditiens would not simultaneously exist for fragments which exceed 1/8 inch diameter (particles having diameters less than 1/8 inch will not clog the ECCS sump screens) 8-\

I For higher local Reynolds numbers (1<Ng< 100), the motion of the fragment is characterized by an initial adjustment occurring as its travel begins through water, whereby any initial orientation will adjust itself to an attitude normal to the velocity resultant from pool drift and gravity.

For yet higher local Reynolds numbers (100<Ng), the motion will be characterized by a periodic pitching (flutter) which persists throughout the descent of the fragment. The pitching oscillations.are damped in the case of the low local Reynolds numbers (1 N R< 100) and hence the adjustment mentioned above results, but are not damped for 100<Ng1 (or the damping is very small). In the case of the smallest and lightest fragment that cannot pass through the ECCS sump screens, i.e., a 1/8-inch disk, 5 mils thick, with 90 lb/fta density, the local Reynolds number is generally above 250. Hence unstable oscillations can be expected to persist until the fragment reaches the bottom of the pool or the ECCS screens, whichever occurs first.

Finally, Reference 14 notes that the type of motion that can be expected is also influenced by the mass moment of inertia of the fragment. The latter is given by 1:.mM where m is the fragment mass which equals Pp 'l9 t (Pp = fragment density, d = fragment (disk) diameter and t = fragment 4 thickness).

When the dimensionless mass moment of inertia of the fragment defined as Iw -

I/psy d 5 where p yyd5 is proportional to the mass moment of inertia of a rigid sphere of water about its diameter d, exceeds 10 2, tumbling motion of the fragment can be expected for Ng < 100.

The tumbling motion probability is increased for progressively higher N R-For the 1/8-inch fragment, the dimension'less moment of inertia is approximately 3 x 10 3 and Ng2 250; thus, no tumbling is expected. As the fragment size increases, the local Reynolds number increases (for instance a 1/2-inch-diameter fragment will have a Reynolds number of 1000), but the dimensionless mass moment of inertia decreases; hence, tumbling is also not to be expected. However, if the size of the fragment remains the same, i.e., 1/8 inches, but the thickness is increased to about 15 mils (about the maximum expected), then the fragment may tumble.

S-2 1

N M. NT."5EPREEfNN3lHE T'2."."E P a=u'"m ,,l,,.ar 'M - ' - ' - - am

Because of the uncertainty inherent in the behavior of the fragment as it travels through the water, all of the motions described above have been studied, so that the most conservative type of motion, le that resulting in the longest horizontal distance travelled, could be selected. The theory and results for each type of motion are described below.

b. Analysis of Motion With Constant Angle This analysis assumes that the paint fragment is idealized zis a disk which hits the pool surface at any incident angle. .

Conservatively, and because of surface tension effects (particles smaller than 1/8" will break through the surface with difficulty), small paint fragments (i.e., 1/8-inch diameter, 5 mils thick) are assumed to be momentarily arrested at the water surface, then to start their travel through the water at the angle of impact with zero initial velocity. Any angle of impact is assumed to be equally probable since for travel in air (or together with spray droplets) the local Reynolds number is high and the dimensionless mass moment of inertia (with respect to air) is also large and hence tumbling motion would be expected.

Referring to Figure 8.1-1, the equations describing the motion of the paint fragment through water when the pitch angle is assumed constant are the following:

PP "PV pp 8-PV y p 8- py Aproj sin S M/

4 ..

C(f) py Aproj cosS 3

g/ ,

2 pV du P P y = -CD (0)p Aproj cos B W + C L()pA sin 8W 2 , 2 w proj r

2 2 W =u + (Vo -v)2 2

A proj

= d sin (0) 4 8-3

Herein u = vertical component of the fragment velocity defined as positive downward v = horizontal component of the fragment velocity Pp= paint density (assumed to be the minimum - 90 lb/ft3)

Pw = water density (60 lb/ft 3 at 200*F)

W = fragment relative velocity Vo= velocity of pool water toward the screen (0.08 ft/sec)

C0 = Drag coefficient which varies with @

Ct = Lift coefficient which varies with @

B = angle from pool surface to the velocity vector The equations describing the motion of the paint particle have been written for a two dimensional problem only. Strictly speaking, the problem is tridimensional, and under the assumption of constant angle with presence of lift, a particle can travel sideways with respect to the direction of the pool drift velocity. However, if one assumes that lift is negligible, then side motion can be considered negligible, and the problem reduces to a two dimensional problem.

The value of Co for the circular disk is described as a sine function of the incident angle of the disk relative to flow. It has a maximum value of 1.9 when the disk is oriented normal to 0 the relative velocity vector and a minimum value of Co= .074/Ng when the disk is parallel to the flow (Reference 15). The lift coefficient, CL, is, conservatively assumed to be negligible for consistency with the observations of References 14 and 16, which found it to be so for low Reynolds numbers. However, comments by W.W. Willmarth to Reference 16 point out that if the motion is accompanied by large oscillation, appreciable lift is developed. Hence, neglect of lift may not be entirely justifiable.

As will be shown later inclusion of lift results in lesser horizontal distance travelled by the fragment.

The results of the constant angle analysis, indicated on Figure 8.1-2, show that if the initial incident angle assumed for the disk approaches 90*, the relatively large downward vertical velocity dominates over the pool " drift" (recirculated pool velocity) velocity so that the fragment does not travel horizontally a significant distrance.

While mathematically this result is correct, physically it may be unrealistic because the actual behavior at the local Reynolds 8-4

x numbers (N p 250) is expected to result in an adjustment of the pitch angle.

As Reference 14 indicates, at the local Reynolds numbers of interest, the fragment will tend to orient itself in the most stable equilibrium state (unless large oscillations are present).

This state is defined as that which would have the largest dimension being normal to the relative velocity, i.e., the disk will move in a perpenticular position to the velocity that propels it (or drags it).

The results of this analysis show that only paint contained within a distance of 8.6 feet of the edge of the screens has the potential for reaching the screen (i.e., bottom of screen from 9.5 ft. pool surface). Moreover, since the angle remains constant, not all paint within this area will reach the screen, but only a certain fraction.

That fraction is related to the angle with which the paint fragment hits the surface. Since, as will be discussed later, this is not the most conservative mode of paint transport, discussion of the quantity of paint transported in this fashion is deferred to a later subsection of this section.

c. Oscillatory Motion of Fragment The second analytical method employs the same equations as the method described in Item b above, but adds one additional equation which describes the rotation of the particle fragment.

This equation is

$ L ( Aw sin 0 + L w cos0) dt 2 2t pp 2t PW d p p Here tp is the paint fragment thickness, and L is the distance from the fragment center of mass to the center of applied pressure. This distance is given by 0.44da L= where a = 90 - /0/

H2 v .

Using the two equations given in Item b, plus the third equation given above, the maximum horizontal distance travelled by the fragment as a function of its initial angle of descent is given in Figure 8.1-2. As this figure shows, the maximum distance which the fragment can travel is the same as computed by the first method. However, proportionately more paint located within this distance away from the edge of the screen can reach the

. 8. S

I~ .

screen, since paint which begins its travel at angles near 90*

. can now reach the screen from distances farther away than calculated in the prior method.

In the results shown in Figure 8.1-2 lift has been neglected. As Reference 17 indicates, lift may be present when large oscillation occur. Analyses performed with consideration of lift indicate that in general lift will reduce the maximum horizontal distance that a particle can travel. Because of the large uncertainty associated with the choice of a value for lift coefficients, no credit can obviously be taken for the effect.

However, one can intuitively understand this effect by visualizing that since the particle will travel substantially with its face aligned normal to its motion (on the average since the particle oscillates about this position), it presents an angle of attack to lift which causes lift to reduce its forward motion.

The equation describing the rotation of the paint particle about

. its center mass contains no damping term. This is considered appropriate for the range of Reynolds numbars of interest and when lift is neglected. As the amplitude of the oscillation increases and lift becomes pronounced, the absence of a damping term will probably lead to incorrect solutions (this is one of the reasons why lift has been ignored). Actually, the damping term would not be a true damping, but rather a virtual mass effect, whereby the effect of hydrodynamic mass introduced by the angular acceleration through a large rotation is to add an inertia term which opposes the rotation of the fragment.

Figure 8.1-3 illustrates the trajectory of a 1/8-inch paint fragment descending through a pool of water with a drift velocity of 0.8 fps. Two trajectories are shown. One trajectory assumes no lift, and the other assumes a large lift coefficient. As previously stated, little confidence can be placed on the accuracy of the latter. However, its behavior tends to confirm that lift will reduce the horizontal distance travelled.

The frequency of oscillation of the particle illustrated in Figure 8.1-3 is 4.17 sec-1. Reference 16 provides an equation from which the expected frequency of oscillation of disks falling through a medium can be predicted from the equation.

n(frequency of oscillation) = 0.169 V(p C O **"

D p herein all symbols have been previously defined, one computes that for a particle 1/8 inch in diameter falling with a velocity cpproximately equal to 0.8 fps, its frequency of oscillation should be about 4.S3 sec'1 8-G

r l

d. Tumbling Fragments The third analysis performed assumes that the fragment tumbles as it descends through the water. For tumbling, the fragment is idealized as a sphere having an equivalent mass as the disk (a sphere having a diameter equal to the disk would travel a much shorter distance horizontally)

Under this assumption the equations of motion are considerably simplified since there is no preferred orientation. This sphere corresponding to the 1/8-inch paint fragment is compumed to travel horizontally a maximum distance of 2-1/2 feet.

Drag for the sphere in the range of Reynolds numbers of interest is approximated by C

D

~ -

N

(+ "R 8.2 Analysis of Potential for Sump Clogging If one conservatively assumes that any paint fragment larger than the minimum screen opening which reaches the screen surface sticks to the surface, and further conservatively assumes that no fragment overlays another fragment, then results of the analysis employing method a) (Item (t ) above indicate that a large percentage of the fine screens can be blocked.

The precise amount of screen blockage depends on may factors, including the amount of paint, insulation and other debris which may have been transported to the screen by mechanisms described in other sections of this report. This section however, demonstrates that regardless of mechanism of transport, i.e.,

global transport from other containment areas as addressed in the other sections of this report, which clogs the lower portion of the screens, or local transport through the pool in the immediate vicinity of the sumps, as addressed in this section, which clogs a significant percentage of the upper portion of the screens, there will remain on the top portion of the screen a band estimated to be a minimum of 2 inches wide, which will be free of paint. This is not the only area of the screen free of paint, debris, etc. The maximum amount of sump clogging resulting from failure of all paint in containment will be 94 percent. Results of the full scale test conducted by Western Canada Ltd. have shown that this percentage of blockage is acceptable from the standpoint of sump performance and NPSH requirements of the ECCS pumps.

The 94 percent is a composite figure, since as will be shown later there are other areas of the screen which will only be partly blocked. To understand how the 94 percent composite figure is derived, it is necessary to understand the precise R-7

geometry of the top portion of the sump. This geometry is shown in Figure 8.2-1. ,

The top of the sump rack is a solid steel plate which extends more than 1 foot outward from the fine screen, and approximately 8 inches outward from the course screens.

A distance of 5-3/8 1.nches separates the fine and coarse screens (5.5 inches from outer edge); and a solid plate connects the bottom of the fine screen frame to the bottom of the coarse screen frame.

The top of the fine screens is a solid plate extending downward approximately twelve inches. Likewise, the coarse screens are separated from the top plate by a gap, which is approximately ten inches. The top of the coarsa screen consists of a solid plate 2-11/16 inches wide.

The results of the analyses in this section indicate that at the beginning, when the screens are relatively free and the inlet velocity at the fine screen is 0.08 fps, the descent of the smallest paint particles through the pool (1/8 inch, 5 mils thick) takes place at approximately 45' trajectory. As particles -

accumulate against the screen (including debris from the other ^

transport mechanism described in other sections), the inlet velocity at the fine screen itself will increase, although farther away from the fine screen (i.e., just outside the coarse screens) the velocity will not change nearly as much.

Ultimately, as the fine screens become b)ocked to the maximum extent, the inlet velocity reaches a value ofi about 1.3 fps at the fine screens.

At this point the flow through the fine screens behaves as two dimensional flow through an orifice of diameter equal to the screen open band. Particles of paint which fall in the pool immediately adjacent to the top plate edge would fall at most along a 45' trajectory until they experience the increased velocities in the region influenced by the orificing effect of the severely blocked fine screens. Those particles which are brought in the vicinity of the lower edge of the coarse screen frame will then be transported at an angle defined as a = tan

-1 8 oo Where U S is the terminal velocity of the particle modelled as a sphere, since for the higher Reynolds numbers the particle will tend to tumble, and Vn2 is the average of the flow velocity over the distance travelled. Solution for this angle is iterative since Voo depends on the size of the orifice'which in turn is dictated by the angle.

8-6

l

--w At an orifice size of 2 inches the velocity at the fine screen inlet is about 1.3 fps and the velocity at the coarse screens inlet is about .4 fps. At these higher velocities the particle fragment will tumble and behave more as an equivalent sphere.

For a 1/8 inch particle the vertical velocity component will be about 0.3 fps. From the moment the particle crosses the coarse screen its trajectory will be defined along a parabola roughly bounded by an angle given by et = tan 0.3/0.8 or 20 degrees where 0.8 fps is the average velocity over the distance travelled.

Since 5.5 (distance separating two screens) times tan 20 is 2.0 inches, this dimension is the band width of the top of the fine screens which is computed to remain free of paint debris.

In addition to the free band of fine screens that would remain on all sides of the sump, there is some additional area of the screen which will not be blocked.

The screen facing the steam generator wall is computed to be not completely blocked. Most of the paint on concrete walls is computed not to reach the screen because of its relatively large thickness (=25-30 mils). Of tha remainder of the paint a -

fraction consisting of approximately 35 ft of paint from the i ceiling plus about 30 ft of paint on pipes, supports, etc., is computed to reach the screen over about half its width. The remainder of the width is completely clogged by the ceiling paint and support paint. If there were no other debris against that side of the sump, the screen open area would be about 25 fta, With debris covering the bottom half of the screen, only about 12.5 fta would remain open. This figure is equally applicable to either sump. Together with the free area at the very top of the screen, the total free area would be approximately 24 ft2 This blockage would not impair the capacity of the Eccs sump to function, since as stated in Section 4, 19 fta is sufficient.

f-9

9 e #

P

, Vo .

1

.g

'V < 7 e

/

P +

8 v ,

y. V '

R FIQURE 8.1- 1 CHIP MOTION WITH CON STANT ANGLE e

m a tg  %

s

'~

.n  :.: , ,,

y 0. 6 'f3 ,

j \

ta l' l:c . . -

Ns 0.7 - i

= D:- l - '

LIFT ASSUMED TO BE W r

0. O 1

t NEGLIGIBLE

.tj C

a 0.57 ,

w.

>.l 0.4-M

.v

> l CONSTANT INCIDE9T ANGLE p 0. ,3 -  ;

e -m~  ;  :

w i

=

', > 0.;2 - i

)

s 32 4\'

t .. , ,' 0.' l - ';

i i

N i

4 -

ROTATING PEEL  !,

- i l .

\.

40x , 9'O ldo :

g .

PEEL INCIDENT ANGLE  ;

CO) (DEGREES )

- s i

's i i

o. .

- ~ ~ . . . - '>

= y" b .

s . -

, y' 10 ~ J .!

3' ' 'l r:-ROTATING PEEL fow.

i

_ i i i, ,

r .a ,

g ca -

ww m .

I' p g 3t g  !

g zE 4 5- '

F \ '

E

o*w Laj

.l i

g ev e

e ,Er o{

CONSTqNT INCIDENT ANGLE y1 8.j .d -  !

r, a -

. O  ; 90 180 g -

j PEELJ INCIDENT ANGLE (0 ) (DEQREES ) . _ . . ___

E FIGURE 8.l-2

- CONST ANT ANGLE ANALYSIS RESULTS B -

^A

^

. . , WAT.EB . SURFACE. \ po : o 30*

m.iiii,r ti

li n m.:ir m;wq-

-- .inF. .:<.;p. .:cip:ayr pnit gp p p;.e rir:nq

;r, ,n p A:3.,pmi pf m mg  ;;

e ,

i

'j q:g.

.,,: 1: :1,,

th.tj, f . . 'l p p 1  :

l, E .

.t :  : 1 .

-l:

'  ; , 1

!! t f

.  : ...t iN:g,ftij ! .tp

V 0 Si PS i  !  ;

i N t;jhij g=j!h 1 1 '  : d, illkqv .i i' t, l -Gysp lo '/+  ! T; l,i: ! -

l

l. -. _ . . , , i,nr; .

1, ,..-

t j I t'

'"* .l, '.;t" t I j .- .

T"' - .LM M '11R OM. ..

F.;n~;-

. j yn .

~

. j, m r@'L*j t t

~j al J

l. re p

!]i ?

u l.y$d. lt; ,;wr,9]I. $(if t ;i t i p =.,'il!hie r@p!g  ! i J 4..l na. t..

ap a:t y; - . -; ~

!nd ,P,

't ,; c.

~

h p.tif. l'  ;

j;jn t' . , ., 11,  ;, .  ::t ;t :t;

]

'l 1 : g.lh:ntW1tj 't n jj:. p ,;' ,rn.gt, j p t gWMupt U:j.!!g:;u 3 j mix ,

t:t4 :fp n ;p;re

.:4 g . .

n 1 .

4

::,  ;;. :n. r, : a 3..- ' h o i...l1c: n ..,; jn p,

.  ;,n  : ,nu :;.m:p:ne"r

m v-! l tu b, "l.

gT. l l . i i .' U n "

i i hidt Fi llhl l u

2 _g n i r hi fji y!!g:

i !u.sim!

j j pl; 1

n:!

ll l:i ;!;j uinwij '

q n  ; .4di n  ;' i i ;jn 1n

.!I h"  !!  ! i i

{t l jl,l i[

I

>. b lq "ni.!

o -

n r it, t -

ali i..:

i -

i n ;

r 3 ,

nc.,i i  ;, n r

i " . . i L I. ,i, . iii Q rl ;Jii pl..P,H a l  : !-

.J i;.

t J:

2

.4 .

f i

i

]... +

.1

t r

1 ig!; .

+ t,p: t !n o

! !:rz

, fr

nn um ::-

,p.r  :

7,. t + .

+tt *- ;

11'+2 t.t fp; tt+i

+d f [. n at 1:. "II.p't nrtr 3

n

~

r  : n .:

m h.g(t.,-' .

~

[

I n

J'.' t*  :./. t:

==-

.] i

.M '+{  ::!E : - *::1 t t  :  : t_

-(

q.:.k' a.!t:f. , tht :i.nj g 1;,S,i wir. .; lt v} it*t .t}i ,, t. ;

U n

• t1 1 ..- a

t t 1' -

g ..

~

t . l .g"{ ,;

4 p 2

g g, q": ;g g 4

q' qeq

-'p

c..m.:a.m:!;=  ::: :1111:

g  ; 3. j, pyF .. ;

~

2

+ d M:p,j in 1 2

..~ -

. p11 1. i.7-.I ;,+{:. ' * .'

• 't;.y  :: n g:'t_.L: tnu r:t:

... t I'

.i i

i .1, . .

. ,I I 1+I:

n

+.

' u' ip i '; .

n .

,. t j.

t t .'.l.u

. U.

{+ iI

)g

.g. ~

i; .t.

> l ]  :{h.

^

]

i

[ i

{ ,

~;f,illil  :.

0

.I J.', , !. t, ,

1 ,

j

't ,t

'. 3 E

,l' t ,

i

' I  :

! } ,; i

'n ll;j.H!:T1 6 -

f. j .

pl ,e :r t i - .P-'. t:* ,' .:

i 1- I r,1 0.1 ~:

~-

lr^yt- .

f:Ji.:te c  :,

9;-

j r  !

j. i 3, i. t : r .ii 1: l t-' p: 4:; :.ij mp ...n

l. It n.tn :n,: n

, :i, ; ;;; n ,3 : +:g i  ;.t

.an!.,pt un: n v.r;, 1 .; ...

..1 ". 1 -

pi.

• 3.

a  :

. gt.  :

!!*.[n i

I i- f j r:!

l' i . :! ? :r, , :}p!;f.'.:,i j

n:n a *1 ':o i j L'

Il

~ -

1 t

t+!

4

t -

,i  ;

iti n! ., t:. j jr.

n,  :  :

'; J e -

t .; ip ti. :

ilr p!:  ! h.1

' I

,!l

! Ji  ! !! h i l '

't i,

i i

l i

' It !- '.r . ! . !

'l lt I:j t

j. I it i l

'd'  ; liil  ! il' ,:!Hi,jih-I i,ii n r 1 ll i .

i 'i F -

i c

- .i.p j. ;n! ;

i i il t  : e ; ;. h. ,p uj :.

,1

,l i l.

t 1 1 ;

t

n .. ;- i r i, c: n, i

n!'::t!n:

I

t..  ? 1t}  ; .; i :t :t  :. !u ;, :: *t'. t;+

r

-)  ; . U' ' t

".' { f, -.} '  ! : . nit e::+j.. h' . : 3h:r!{;r;* i

l; +i;ti:

]!} ~.

t -:t..7  !:

1..

rn

~ .. - .

r:;

I

~..

1 r* ..ltt t t r' 8:'I nt

~'

t{ l.' i' r I!

' ~

lj ] 1'( j. ~: :tfI!t I  ! i !'

t f y  :  : .

i .y

.. S* in j' 1- .

I '

(

, l

.t b I o .

n, ... l. :!.;':

, .I, j

l 1

~ -

-1 ig- ir ll :i+

'i i I

in a a illti <!

. 1

;.. .  : :l.1  : .

I:

1.i; f*::.is.i.r>.ti: n ;;p

! m ! n:!; purl

h . a p , ..

":

l- ' t  ;;t' i 1 t t  :

_igthi,p,j 4,

t i . . . ,

I gjpt ';d

} dij:iiij;ligN!!..!jjj'::.;n*I tt n tify J  : lip j.

I: : t y Lit.tt p  !

j;h l i Nt

.05 0 HORIZONTAL DISTA NCE (FT)

F1QuRE 8. l- S OSCILLATING MOTION OF PAINT FRAGMENT

w

- - l i

p => a

--> 13 *- ', l is 4

2. __ ->8 3 ,_

8 16 V , l

• 3*

V '

lh8 .

n <<

9;6 ll ~

16 FINE SCREENS >

CO. ARSE SCREENS >

t _

6' HIGH COAMING , , y a ,si xxxxxxxxxssxsv 3"

5 '

8 FIGURE 8.2-1 SUMP GEOMETRY

9.0 DEBRIS EFFECTS ON EMERGENCY SUMPS Each of the two containment recirculation sump screens has a total through-flow area of 386 ftz. The sump screen design is in accordance with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.82 with a through-screen velocity of 0.11 fps. Figure 3.2-2 shows the arrangement of the Emergency Sumps.

The NPSH for RHR/SI pumps and containment spray pumps during the recirculation phase is given in Table 4.1-2.

Blockage of the sumps by debris will tend to increase the pressure losses across the sump screens. The increase in pressure losses will depend on the extent of the blockage and the porosity of the debris. The increase in pressure losses will reduce the available pump NPSH. This can have an adverse effect on the operation of the recirculation pumps, if it exceeds the margin between available and required NPSH.

For totally impermeable debris, the pressure loss across the sump screens was calculated based on the area available for flow, excluding the projected blockage area.

The evaluation of fibrous insulation debris generation shows that there are no zones inside the containment where such insulation can fail to cause debris coincident with a demand for the emergency sump operation.

The insulation debris transport analysis discussed in Section 7.3 determined that the high efficiency insulation and metallic insulation will not be transported to the cump screens.

Any paint debris that is transported to the sump by sliding along the concrete surface will accumulate on the floor. This is because the water velocity at the screens is much lower than the velocity required to put the debris into suspension. However, for a conservative first approximation, to determine if pressure losses were excessive, it was assumed that the screens will be blocked by the paint particles forming a heap next to the screens with an angle of repose of 45 degrees. Figure 9-2 shows a graph of the quantity of paint accumulation at the sump screens corresponding to different levels of sump screen blockage.

The quantity of paint that has any potential for transport to the sump screens is the paint in the sump area itself as discussed in Section 6.2 Paint Debris Transport.

Table 6.2-25 gives about 89,000 sq. ft., as the quantity of paint that c r.n accumulate in the near sump zone (azimuth 45-0/360 - 315*). This quantity includes:

9-1 unummumsweamammunur n . -- - - -

a. .All the paint debris from upper floors of the containment which can be transported to the near sump zone.

b. All 12un paint on the containment liner in the sector for the near sump zone up to the spring line.

.c. All the paint between elevations 808' and 832' in the near sump zone.

The 89,000 sq. ft. of paint in the near sump zone will consist of concrete and steel coatings. For asconservative estimate of the

, volume of paint debris, it was assumed that most of this coating is from concrete surfaces with an average paint thickness of 20 mils. It was also conservatively assumed that the bulk density of the paint debris is only 50 percent of the actual density. Based on these conservative assumptions, the volume of paint debris in the near sump area was calculated to be about 300 cubic feet. This amount of debris constitutes about 4_

.50 percent sump screen blockage.

From Figure 9-2, it can be concluded that about 35 percent of the cump screens will be blocked if all the coating were from steel surfaces and about 50 percent blockage if all the coatings were from concrete surfaces. This amount of blockage must be combined with the blockage from near field effects as determined from Section 8. As can be seen from the last paragraph of section 8,

~this combination leads to the conclusion that 24 square feet of ccreen area is available. Using data from Table 4.1.3, the head loss through the screens is estimated to be 0.4 feet. Because of this loss, the elevation of water in the containment required to cupply the minimum NPSH to the ECCS pumps is increased. Using data from table 4.1.2, the NPSH margin for these pumps will be as chown in Table 9-1.

. Cased -on the above evaluations for insulation and paint debris offects on the emergency sump performance, the following conclusions were arrived at:

a. Insulation has no potential for forming debris which can block the sump screens.

b. Paint debris accumulating in the near sump area resulting from all the coating systems failing in the l containment cannot result in unacceptable sump screen blockage.

9-2 l

. . .___._...2_......_.. ._ _ .

ico. . . - -

'5.75 i

.. . . . . . -. . ~

l 5

~

l

~

l

~

l p l

4 u.

o w

I d ut l

1 l x U l- l 0

O

.; g l I

.5 0>

c l 8

l M i l--

l I

35 I

"2 g-i z I l

~

l l 3

l

.g. _

l l

i.

i. I o l l l' l  ;  !; o l 0 1 2 5

S. 4 5 lG 7 l AREAx10 FT8 STEEL COATINQS l i

l  :  :  : l  :

O 0.5 l.0 1. 5 2.0 2.5 3,o 3.5 l AREAx 105 FT* CONCRETE COATINQS l

l FibORE 9.1 PAINT AREA VS~. */. 5 LOCKED SCREER '

.e +>

N6etO* O N4 *h.e l

i l

TABLE 9-1 SPRAY AND RHR PUMP NPSH Pump PARAMETER CSS RHR Loss through screen

.with 24 ft2 area, feet 0.4 0.4 Water elevation to supply required NPSH, fcet'll 1.02 2.6 Water elevation available,

-fcet(18 6.83 6.83 NPSH margin, feet 5.81 6.63 NOTE: D (1)

Feet above containment floor (EL. 808 ft) l l

s APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX TO REPORT ON EVALUATION OF PAINT AND CONTAINMENT EMERGENCY SUMP PERFORMANCE

.BY GIBBS & HILL, INC. ,

WESTINGHOUSE EVALUATION OF PAINT DEBRIS EFFECTS

ON THE CPSES EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM o

i l

l d

l i

INTRODUCTION

-Westinghouse was requested to evaluate the CPSES Emergency Core '

Cooling- System (ECCS) to determine if the system function / components would be degraded by the ingestion of paint i debris postulated to be present in the containment sump following

a. large break Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). This evaluation was made based on the following assumptions: I

a. Carboline Carbozinc-11 fails during the LOCA and releases zinc to the ECCS*.

f 1- b. The zinc remains suspended in the ECCS coolant.

c. Leachable chloride from all containment paint has the potential to reach the ECCS.

Using the above assumptions an in-depth review was made of the ECC3 nd its critical components to determine what potential corrosion / erosion degradation effects might be expected. Also, no deleterious effects are postulated in the reactor core for the material concentrations assumed in this evaluation.

A- chemical analysis of all containment paints was made to determine the amount of leachable chlorides which could potentially be absorbed into the ECCS.

^

Evaluation of the' Emergency Core Cooling System, Potential Degradation The Emergency Core- Cooling System and its critical operating components which include the high and medium head injection pumps, the low head Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pumps, valves, orifices and RHR heat exchangers were . evaluated for potential corrosion and erosion degradation associated with the failure of the Carboline Carbozinc-11 paint at LOCA conditions and the subsequent ingestion of zine into the ECCS. Zinc particles in

the range of two to 50 microns were assumed to be present in the

! coolant water and remained in suspension during the post-accident l ECCS operating sequences. Leachable chlorides from all the

! containment paints were also assumed to be absorbed into the ECCS coolant.

l The in-depth evaluation of the ECCS and its critical components L failed to identify any condition or component that would L experience significant erosion or corrosion damage. Chemical I

analysis of the six paints used in containment identified potential chloride concentration levels which are significantly below those levels which'could cause stress corrosion cracking i problems in sensitized austenitic stainless steel.

If the zine assumed to be present in the ECCS coolant should settle / drop out of suspension a major portion of the drop out l

L

would occur in the reae. tor vessel lower plenum where flow velocities are expected to be S .1 ft/sec during ECCS recirculation. The available drop out volume of the reactor vessel lower plenum is > 300 ft 3 and would adequately contain all the zine which could be ingested into the ECCS.

Containment Paint Chemical Analysis Results The . impurity contribution of the various containment paint systems to contamination of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) assuming all paint leachables are released to the ECCS was calculated assuming the following parameters:

Volume of Fluid in Containment 550,000 gallons Metal Paint Volume 7.85 x 108 cm 3 Concrete Paint Volume 2.02 x 107 cm 3 Touch-Up Paint Volume Insignificant compared to the above volumes.

The analyzed chloride content of the various containment paints, .

their contribution to the total chlorides and the total chlorides contained in these paints are presented in Table 1.

The total chlorides from the paint systems (6,192 grams) would result in an ECCS coolant chloride concentration of 3.0 ppm.

This value is significantly lower than the 96.5 ppm concentration level below which no cracking of sensitized austonitic stainless steel would occur in 12 months when exposed at 150*F to a solution of boric acid and sodium hydroxide at pH 8.5. This 96.5~ ppm value is obtained using two plots presented in WCAP-7628, Stress Corrosion Testing, D.D. Whyte, 1978, and which conservatively assumes that .the slope of the chloride concentration versus time to crack plot is the same at high pH (8.5) as at low pH (4.5). This value was calculated to be 96.5 ppm of chloride. Since the total chloride leachables from all' . containment paint- would result in only a 3.0 ppm concentration, no stress corrosion cracking of any of the austenitic stainless steels would occur.

Effects of Fluoride Content of Paint on Corrosion If any fluoride ions were present in the paints, no fluoride cracking of sensitized stainless steel would occur since it would form fluoroborates which do not crack stainless steel.

-- _ _ . ., - _.-- ----. - ..-._.-- __ ~_ -.-.--,- - - _.-.-.

I TABLE 1 Total Chloride Total Weight Chloride Concentration, of Paint, Released, Material pym grams grams Metal Paint-Phenoline-305 170 to 180 7.25 x 108 1269 Carbozinc-11 70 to 80 1.0 x 107 750

' Concrete Paint Nutec-11S + 11 + 1201 95 to 120 3.9 x 107 4173

- Touch-Up Paint Carboline-191 250 to 300 Insignificant compared to above quanti-

, ties.

Total paint chloride which would be potentially released = 6,192 grams.

O f

e

--.w -- ~,--, .- . - - - , - -- , , , , , - . . . , , , , . , - . , - - - - - - - . . . - , , - - - , , , - . - , - , , . . . . - - , , . . , , , . , = , , - , , - , , , - , - - , , _ - - ,

I Summary and Conclusions The- evaluationohtheECCSanditscriticaloperatingcomponents revealed'no potential erosion or corrosion degradation with respect to the postulated ingestion of zinc into the ECCS. The conclusions resulting from this evaluaiton and the related j

containment paint chemical analysis are as follows:

o No significant erosion or corrosion damage to the ECCS or to its critical components, o Leachable chloride concentration levels (for all containment paints) which could enter the ECCS are significantly below the chloride concentration levels which could cause cracking in sensitized austenitic stainless steel.

o No fluoride cracking of sensitized stainless steel will occur since any fluoride ion, if present, would form fluoroborates which have no effect on stainless steel.

o No deleterious effects are postulated in the reactor core for the material concentrations assumed in this evaluation.

bm f

f 4

1 r- I L I I

REFERENCES

1) ANSI N101.2 -

1972 Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light

, Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities

2) SSPC, Volume 1, Steel Structures Painting Manual, Chapter 23 4 - 1982

$ 3) ASTM D772-47, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Flaking (Scaling) of Exterior Paints, Volume 06.01 - 1984

, 4) ASTM- E714-56, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints, Volume 06.01 - 1984 4

, 5) ASTM D660-44, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of J Checking of Exterior Paints, Volume 06.01 - 1984 I '

6) NUREG/CR -2791

! 7) Regulatory Guide 1.82 IB) Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratory Report, Dated November

• 1981

9) Open Channel Hydraulics, Vente Chow, McGraw Hill, 1959

10) Handbook of Hydraulics, Brater King, McGraw Hill, 5th Edition, 1963 j

11) Design of Small Dame, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974 .

12) NUREG - 0897, Rev. 1 (Draft), June 1984

13) NUREG/CR - 3616 l 14)'W.W. Willmarth, N.E. Hawk, and R.L. Harvey, " Steady and Unsteady Motions and Wakes of Freely Falling Disks," The  :

Physics of Fluids, 7, 2, 197-208 (1964).

i 15) B. McCormick " Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight l Mechanics," John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1979.

16) E.K. Marchildon, A. Clamen, W.H. Gauvin, " Oscillatory Motion of Freely Falling Disks," Physics of Fluids, 9, 2018 (1964).

I

17) A.W.W. Willmarth " Reply to Comments by E.K. Marchildon, A. Clamen, and W.H. Gauvin," The Physics of Fluids, 9, 2019

(1964).

l

1

-e- -n,v -,+++,m-r,, ,,nrg,- m, , , -- m e ,wm m,,, w w y , .Q-~v,,c~w,-.--vn- r-.-- g -,p--~m