ML20133E597

Forwards Hydrogen Control Owners Group & Hydrogen Control Owners Group Rept on 1/4-Scale Scoping Test Results. Subj Test Program Part of Final Analysis Required by Hydrogen Rule.Related Correspondence

ML20133E597
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	08/06/1985
From:	Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Bright G, Gleason J, Kline J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#385-121 OL, NUDOCS 8508070757
Download: ML20133E597 (67)

Text

(t O M) /,2 ) , ,

( p SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNER $Msp OF PROFESSICNAL COR90 RATIONS 1800 M STREET. N. W.

7{7 WASHINGTON D C.20036 ijg@C TELECOPIER iaCai saa-ices & e22-sise TELEX

,oc UJ ggrd _ 7 g); :) 4 e. es...MA m w ..M.

CAaLE "sM AwtAw" TEL EPMON E J AY E. SILBERG P.C. rg p gr,{ (I ; _st!!. is:, i 2O2 l eaa-sos 3 00CAETit4G & SEPViCI BRANCH August 6, 1985 James P. Gleason, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Gilmoure Drive Silver Spring, Maryland Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hashington, D. C. 20555 Re: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 5 0-4 4 0 and 5 0-4 410L-Gentlemen:

Enclosed for your information is an August 1, 1985 letter to the NRC from the Hydrogen Control Owners Group transmitting a report of the scoping test results from the 1/4 scale test facility. The 1/4 scale program is part of the final analysis required by the hydrogen rule.

V y ruly :/ urs, a L/ /

Jay'E Si 1 erg Co ns 1 f o,r Applic :s JES L Service List l 8500070757 850006 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 PDR g

.A

! I$ . .

Ir i j i .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ;

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

, BETORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I

In the Matter of )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441

)

i (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

! Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST James P. Gleason, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Appeal Board Panel Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Terry Lodge, Esquire Appeal Board Suite 105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 618 N. Michigan Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire I Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appeal Board Lake County Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Center Washington, D.C. 20555 105 center Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 Gary J. Edles, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Ms. Sue Hiatt Prosecuting Attorney 8275 Munson Avenue Ashtabula County Courthouse Mentor, Ohio 44060 Jefferson, Ohio 44047

MARK IX CONTAINMENT tsNc>

HYDROGEN CONTROL OWNERS GROUP Soni a. woees. choi,,non c/a Mississippi Power and Light e P.O. Box 1640 e Jackson, Mssissippi 09205 601 969-2458 August 1, 1985 HGN-053 N[

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation '85 AUG -7 A11 :14 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 , _ . . .

Attention: Mr. Robert Bernero Ed x ;~ rt A.h ?

Subject:

Evaluation of Scoping Test Results The Hydrogen Control Owners Group (HCOG) met with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on July 17, 1985 to discuss the final scoping test matrix and review the results of the scoping test program. ECOG committed to document the information provided to the NRC in the meeting. Attachment 1 provides this information.

As indicated in the meeting, 14 of the 17 scoping tests have been completed.

(Tests S.12, S.12.1 and S.12.2 are expected to be completed by August 2, 1985.) The data from these 14 tests has been reviewed and in general indicate that key parameters such as gas temperature, velocity, and facility pressure, reflect lower peak values in the k scale test facility than expected from results of previous testing and analysis.

The completed scoping tests include tests to assess the effect that grating, LOCA vents, and concurrent steam injection may have on the hydrogen combustion phenomena. The results summarized in both the July 17 meeting and Attachment 1 indicate that the steam had no measurable effect on the hydrogen burn environment, while both the LOCA vents and grating appeared to have a small, but noticeable effect. Therefore, the grating and LOCA vents will be included in the production test matrix.

Further, the scoping tests also included several tests designed to both examine the threshold between diffusion flame burning and deflagrations, and define the test conditions for the 75% MWR production tests that would result in the thermally limiting environment. The detailed results of these tests ar* presented in Attachment 1.

Attachment 2 provides a revised instrument layout for the k scale test facility. This layout identifies the current instrument arrangement in the facility, as well as indicating which thermocouples are connected to the data acquisition system.

J13HCOC85073102 - 1

ECN-053

, , P:33 2 1

This submittal was compiled by HCOG from the best.information available for

, submittal to the NRC. The submittal is believed to be complete and accurate, but it is not submitted on any specific plant docket. The information

contained in this letter and its attachments should not be used for evaluation of any specific plant unless the information has been endorsed by the appropriate member utility. ECOG members may individually reference this letter in whole or in part as being applicable to their specific plants.

Very truly yours,

{  %

S. H. Hobbs  !

i SHR:vos l Attachment cc: Mr. Carl R. Stahle i

Hydrogen Control Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Charles G. Tinkler Containment Systems Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatiot-Washington, D. C. 20555 I

Sandia National Laboratories Attention: Mr. John C. Cummings Organization 1512 i P. O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 4

2 r

4 I

i e

J13HCoc85073102 - 2

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

Attachment I to RGNm153 1

I i

i i

L i

f i

i i

i t

i i

HYDROCEN CONTROL OWNERS CROUP ,

i t

REPORT ON l Is SCALE SCOPING TEST RESULTS r

I f

r P

1 l

t l

1 1

I 1

[

i t

f I

s . ._

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 SCOPING TEST MATRIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.0 EVALUATION OF REPEATABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 REPEATABILITY TESTS .................... 5

3.2 CONCLUSION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.0 ASSESSMENT OF VARIED PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 HIGH STEAM FLOW ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2 LOCA VENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3 GRATING .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.0 DIFFUSION FLAME THRESHOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1 BURN TERMINOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2 THRESHOLD TESTS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.0 DEFINE THE LIMITING 75% MWR THERMAL ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . 15 7.0 PRODUCTION TEST MATRIX .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

8.0 CONCLUSION

S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 TABLES ORIGINAL SCOPING TEST MATRIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 1 FINAL SCOPING TEST MATRIX .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2 PEAK TEMPERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3 PRODUCTION TEST MATRIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4 l

i

t l

1.0 EXECLTTIVE 3UMMARY i The i scale test facility was constructed to define the thermal environment l produced by diffusive combustion in a Mark III containment. The facility  !

simulates the geometry of the Mark III containment excluding the interior r portions of the drywell. Information on the design of the facility was i submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Coenission staff in Reference 1.

l The facility was intended to define the thermal environments produced by '

diffusive hydrogen combustion which equipment must survive. The first portion of the testing in the facility was intended to evaluate the signi ncance of parameters which could affect the thermal environment produced by hydrogen combustion. The Hydrogen Control Owners Group (HCOG) proposed to use the results from the scoping tests to define the tests to be completed for '

evaluating equipment survivability. The tests for evaluating equipment

• survivability were designated as production tests.  !

'the scoping test matrix provided to the NRC by way of Reference 2 was modified [

throughout the scoping test program to reflect the knowledge gained from each  !

test and to optimize the information provided in subsequent tests. Overall ,

instrumentation performed well and data produced during the scoping test [

program reflected good repeatability.  !

r Tourteen of the 17 scoping tests have been completed. The completed tests i were designed to assess the impact that grating, LOCA vents and steam have on  !

the environment produced by a hydrogen burn event. The tests indicated that (

steam has no measurable effect on the resulting environment, while both grating and LOCA vents cause a small, but measurable alteration in the hydrogen burn environment. Due to these measured effects, both grating and

.LOCA vents will be further evaluated during the production tests to quantify

'their effect on each HC00 plant configuration. These tests also produced peak values for gas temperatures, gas velocities and other measured parameters that were significantly less than expected from results of previous testing and analysis. In addition, the combustion phenomena observed at low hydrogen injection rates are significantly more benign than previous deflagration evaluations suggested. Therefore, the scoping test results provide additional confidence that the equipment will survive a hydrogen burn environment.

The scoping tests also provided information pertaining to the defined threshold for diffusion flames. The tests indicated that at low hydrogen l injection rates one of two combustien phenomena may exist - diffusion flames i attached to the suppression pool surface or localised combustion. The '

presence of the localised combustion burns and/or diffusion flames during periods of low hydrogen injection maintained the global hydrogen concentration i below 5%. Global deflagrations did not occur, while compartmental  ;

deflagrations occurred only as light off burns. o The following report discusses in detail the revisions made to the scoping I test matrix and the results of the scoping tests. The production test matrix  ;

is also presented. i i

(

l

o a 2.0 SCOPING TEST MATRIX Table 1 represents the scoping test matrix submitted by NCOG to the NRC staff in Reference 2. As indicated in the matrix, the HCOG proposed to evaluate'the repeatability of the test data. HCOG proposed to evalute the effects of varying single parameters and to assess the significance of effects produced by altering the individual parameter. The parameters to be evaluated included the effect of simultaneously injecting hydrogen and steam, injecting hydrogen through both simulated safety relief valve sparsers and LOCA vents, installing a section of grating near the suppression pool surface, and installing additional blockage in the test facility. '11:e scoping tests were also expected to establish the threshold (i.e. point at which flames become intermittent) hydrogen flow rate below which steady diffusion flames would not be maintained on the suppression pool surface.

As reflected in Table 1, the first three scoping tests (5-1, 5-2 and 5-3) were repeatability tests which involved injecting the hydrogen release history predicted by the BWR Core Heatup Code (BWRCHUC) into the test facility.

The next scoping test on Table 1, 3-4, will be discussed later. Test 5-5 was completed with simultaneous injection of the steam and hydrogen release histories predicted by BWRCHUC. This test showed substantially greater effects than could be explained due to the addition of steam. MCOG completed calculations of pressure drops across the orifices which control flow through the SRV sparsers and made a visual inspection of the flow distribution through the SRV sparsers into the simulated suppression pool. HCOG concluded that hydrogen flow alone was insufficient to assure an even distribution of flow through the sparser system. The simultaneous injection of steam and hydrogen was sufficient to assure an even flow distribution through the sparser system. In order to provide for an acceptable series of repeatability tests, the original scoping test matrix was revised to include a set of repeatability tests which used the hydrogen and steam release histories calculated by the BWRCHUC.

In order to assess the effect that steam may have on the hydrogen burn environment, test 5.05.3 was conducted with a substantially increased steam flow, (two to three times the ficw used in scoping test 5.05). This test indicated that steam produced an insignificant effect on the measured environment. It was subsequently decided that since key parameters are not affected by the addition of steam there would be no benefit to reproducing the steam flow history predicted by BWRCHUC in subsequent tests. Therefore, the steam flow rate used in the remaining scoping tests was the minimum, constant steam flow rate which would ensure a uniform hydrogen distribution. This flow rate is defined as 85 to 95 ACFM. This steam release rate will be used in production testing.

The next scoping test in Table 1, 5 6, involved the injection of the prescribed hydrogen release history through both 8 ADS sparsers and LOCA vents.

This test appeared to show more even distribution of temperatures at the HCU floor. In order to determine if the SRV and LOCA vent release location actually resulted in a change in the thermal environments, the scoping test matrix in Table 1 was expanded to include two additional tests with this configuration.

The next test identified in Table 1, 8-7, assessed the effect of grating on the combustion environment. The NRC staff had expressed concern that HCOG should evaluate the possibility that the combination of grating and hydrogen discharge through the SRV spargers and the LOCA vents could be significant.

Since several Mark III plants have grating attached to the drywell wall, such that discharging hydrogen through the LOCA vents would have a greater effect, NCOG elected to complete a test with grating and discharging the hydrogen through the SRV and LOCA vents. This test appeared to show that grating had an effect. The scoping test matrix in Table 1 was expanded again to include an additional test to evaluate the repeatability of the observed phenomena.

Test 5 8 in Table 1 involved an increased quantity of spray carryover blockage in the facility to assess the impact that a reduced spray volume to the wetwell would have on the resulting environment. This test was unnecessary since MC00 has consitted to conduct all the production tests with a very high level of both spray carryover and flow blockage.

Tests 8-9 through 5-14 identified in Table 1 were also not run. Subsequent to submitting the scoping test matrix in Reference 2 and prior to the conduct of the initial scoping test, HCOG has decided to run the bulk of the scoping tests without sprays. This decision was based on the concern that the presence of sprays could potentially mask any effects caused by the installation of grating, injection through LOCA vents, or injection with steam. The absence of sprays therefore allowed the scoping tests to be applicable to River Bend, and precluded the need to run plant specific scoping tests for River Bond.

Additional tests not previously reflected on the scoping test matrices were identified. A test was completed to establish the threshold hydrogen flow rate below which it would not be possible to maintain steady diffusion flames above the suppression pool. The test (5-4) which HCOG intended to perform utilised one SRV that was assumed to be stuck open and an initially high hydrogen release history stepped down to a constant release rate. As a result of the completed scoping tests, HC00 observed that the selection of the hydrogen release history appeared to have an effect on the threshold hydrogen flow rate at which diffusion flames could be sustained. In particular, discharging hydrogen without establishing a diffusion flame created a background hydrogen concentration throughout the test facility. This background hydrogen concentration enabled steady diffusion flames to exist at the suppression pool surface for hydrogen flow rates below the diffusion flame threshold established by previous testing programs. NCOG modified the hydrogen release history used for threshold testing to represent the characteristics of the hydrogen release histories predicted by BWRCHUC.

This diffusion flame threshold test demonstrated that the diffusion flame threshold hydrogen flow rate was lower than the threshold established in the 1/20th scale testing program. NC00 elected to complete additional studies of the threshold for establishing steady diffusion flames, HC00 also repeated the threshold test completed in the i scale test facility that used eight simulated SRVs.

The threshold testing completed by HCOG indicated that two combustion phenomena could occur during the sustained, constant low hydrogen production which might be associated with an accident resulting in a 75% NWR. These phenomena were either: 1) weak diffusion flames on the suppression pool surface; or 2) unsteady, continuous localized combustion. In order to determine which of these phenomena represented a limiting thermal environment.

HCOG elected to complete two additional scoping tests. Each test would produce a different hydrogen burn phenomena and a total hydrogen injection equivalent to a 75% NWR would be used.

The changes to the scoping test matrix as discussed above were incorporated into Table 2 which represents the final scoping test matrix. The balance of this report is devoted to discussing in detail, the results of the scoping tests and the decisions reached by HCOG regarding the production tests.

1 9

4

3.0 EVALUATION OF REPEATABILITY As mentioned in Section 1.0, the i scale test facility was constructed to simulate hydrogen burn events as postulated to occur in Mark III containments. In order to ensure that the data from the testing program reflects actual burn characteristics, and is not representing a random, non-repeatable event, repeatability tests were run.

As indicated in the Hydrogen Control Program Plan, Task 9, Acceptance Criterion 5, the repeatability of the test data was evaluated using a set of tests with comparable initial conditions and identical geometry. The test data for this series of tests was required to have less than a 15% variation from the mean for the measured peak gas temperatures, velocities and radiant heat fluxes at the HCU floor level to ensure acceptable test repeatability.

3.1 Repeatability Tests In the Scoping Test Program, three tests were identified in the original test matrix (Table 1) to provide this repeatability data. Scoping tests S.01, S.02 and S.03 were run with hydrogen injection through 9 spargers in the i '

scale facility. These spargers were selected to simulate 8 automatic depressurization system (ADS) valves and a stuck open relief valve (SORV) located at the 330' azimuth, the test data appeared to provide an acceptable level of repeatability, thereby illustrating that subsequent testing would provide test data representative of the test being conducted.(1)

The next scoping test to be run (i.e. , S.05) involved the concurrent injection of hydrogen and steam through the simulated 8 ADS valves and SORV at the 330' azimuth. The injection history for both the hydrogen and steam was modeled to match the history predicted by the BWR Core Heatup Code (BWRCHUC) for a Base Case A transient. (Base Case A is defined in detail in Reference 2.)

The Base Case A hydrogen generation history predicted by BWRC:IUC is provided as Figure 1, and the hydrogen history injected into the facility is provided as Figure 2. As discussed in Section 2.0, test data resulting from S.05 indicated that gas temperatures were varying in a manner that was inconsistent with the results of the earlier scoping tests. Upon evaluation it was evident that there was a possible uneven hydrogen flow distribution during these earlier tests. Subsequent investigation and analyses confirmed that the hydrogen manifold pressure was insufficient during tests with only hydrogen to ensure an equal flow to each sparger. It was also confirmed that the presence of steam during injection increased the manifold pressure to a value where balanced distribution of hydrogen occurs. It was decided to replace the previous repeatability tests (S.01 through S.03) with two additional tests configured identical to S.05, and use the data from these three tests to provide the desired repeatability baseline.

(1) Test data for scoping tests S.01, S.02 and S.03 will not be reviewed since these tests are now considered as shakedown tests.

Following the completion of the additional S.05 tests (S.05.1 and S.05.2) the data was assessed in accordance with the Program plan to determine the consistency of the data. The results of this data evaluation, in addition to a brief description of the instrumentation in the facility, is provided in the following discussion.

3.1.1 Hydronen Injection The hydrogen injection histories for scoping tests S.05, S.05.1 and S.05.2 were reviewed to assess the i scale facility's ability to accurately and l I

consistently introduce the desired hydrogen history. Figures 2, 3 and 4 I reflect the hydrogen histories introduced into the facility in scoping tests S.05, S.05.1 and S.05.2, respectively. As evidenced by these plots, the repeatability of hydrogen injection is very good. The hydrogen history step increases, step widths and peak values, are all within the 15% acceptance criterion previously referenced. As illustrated by subsequent discussions in this report this repeatability is typical of this test program.

3.1.2 Thermocouple Performance As committed to in Task 9 to the Hydrogen Control Plan, the thermocouple data from each scoping test is used to: 1) evaluate the magnitude of any effect that may be caused by, for example, grating, LOCA vents or added blockage; and

2) determine the nature of the thermal plume and temperature distribution for each test.

Thermocouple data for the scoping tests discussed in Sections 2 and 3 of this report is provided in Table 3.(2) The values tabulated reflect peak temperatures for thermocouples located circumferential1y at the 10', 11.2',

16.6' and 20' levels. The peak values tabulated represent mean values for the peak temperatures identified on the thermocouple temperature traces. The peak values are identified manually by postulsting a smooth curve through the temperature trace.

The Program Plan states that only data from HCU floor instrumentation needs to be evaluated to assess data repeatability. However, HCOG evaluated data from several elevations because these elevations represent the areas of the facility where temperature increases are most significant, and exhibited the greatest tendency to vary from test to test.

As indicated in Table 3, there are several thermocouples in each test that are noted with an "*". This asterick is provided for one of the following two reasons: 1) the peak thermocouple temperature remained below 200*F; or 2) the thermocouple responded as if wet during the early portions of the test and the moisture did not evaporate during the period of peak hydrogen injection. The former condition tended to be a more acute problem in the 135* and 215' chimneys which tended to exhibit lower temperatures than in the 45' and 315' chimneys. Those thermocouples which did appear to miss their peaks, often (2) Thermocouple data was provided to the NRC in a handout during the July 17 HCOG/NRC meeting. The data in Table 3 reflects a modified data set of that information in the handout. These modifications resulted from an additional review of the thermocouple temperature plots.

dried out after the peak injection, and provided useful datr for scoping tests run with tail injections. Those that appeared to remain wet, do not adversely affect the quality of the data matrix in Table 3 since this type of the thermocouple trace would represent a continuously cold (i.e., less than 200*F) region of the facility. Typical wet and dry thermocouple traces are provided as Figures 5 and 6, respectively.

-For those thermocouples which are completely dry and inaicate temperatures greater than 200*F, the repeatability of the temperature profiles is very good, as is the correlation between this data and measurements from adjacent heat flux instruments. For data entries that reflect temperatures less than 200*F, it was often difficult to determine whether or not the thermocouple had indeel dried off by the time the peak hydrogen injection had occurred. The data variation [i.e., (range /mean) x 100] as provided in Table 3, further illustrates the quality and repeatability of this data. The average variation -

is 5.5% for those thermocouples with peak values tabulated for at least two of the three repeatability tests. This indicates that the thermocouple data meets the 15% acceptance criterion delineated in the Program Plan.

2 The drywell surface thermocouple profiles were also reviewed for each test and were remarkably similar, in that all read less than or equal to 150*F except for S306. S306 is located at the i radius on the grating in the 45' chimney at the 17.2' (i scale facility) level. The peak temperature for S306 varied between 200*F and 225'F for Scoping Tests S.05 through S.07.

3.1.3 Velocity Data 1

As previously referenced, the Program Plan also committed to evaluate data at: sing from a velocity probe located in the 315' chimney; however, HCOG has evaluated the repeatability of data from all velocity probes. There are presently 8 horizontal and 16 vertical velocity probes installed in the i

scale facility. The data from these probes is processed by a multiplexer to

~

provide global velocity data.

Velocity data from scoping tests S.05, S.05.1 and S.05.2 indicate that gas velocities in the i scale facility vary between zero and ten feet per second.

These velocities are much lower than velocities estimated to exist in previous l testing programs. Though the velocity probes installed are designed to measure such higher velocities, adequate data has been provided by these probes to support the conclusion that gas velocities in the repeatability test have been less than 10 feet per second. Since the velocity data is multiplexed prior to its use, the velocity profiles cannot be compared between tests to assess adequacy per the defined 15% acceptance criterion. The velocity data for each test can be reviewed to define the range for the velocities measured in that test. These range values have been reviewed for each test and they support the i- conclusion that the vast majority of the velocities measured to date are less

] than 10 feet /second.

It was also noted during the final two scoping tests (S.09 and S.11) that exposure to the spray environment degraded the performance of the velocity probes. However, peak velocities will occur prior to spray actuation and therefore, the data of primary significance will not be affected.

3.1.4. Pressure Measurements r

The initial pressure in the i scale facility is set to simulate the suppression pool and containment heatup scenario. The test volume pressure is set to ensure that the initial air mass corresponds to the air mass in the containment at approximately 70*F and 100% relative humidity.

Pressure transducers are attached to the drywell wall in the test facility at elevations of 7.0 and 28.4 feet. The location of these two pressure instruments allows for an evaluation of pressure in both the wetwell and upper containment regions.

As reflected in Figures 7 (Test S.05), 8 (Test S.05.1) and 9 (Test S.05.2),

the peak pressures which result from the burn reflect a peak of approximately 20 psia, a pressure increase less than 3 psi, and a 4.1% deviation between the peak in the 3 tests. Figures 7, 8 and 9 illustrate the repeatability of the pressure transient data between the repeatability tests. Figure 10 provides the P500 pressure profile for the upper containment. P500 is used to verify the P100. data.

3.1.5 Instrument Repeatability  ;

In addition to the instrumentation discussed above, many other instruments are installed in the i scale facility to measure various aspects of the burn phenomena. These other instruments include sphere calorimeters, a complex calorimeter, and hydrogen, oxygen and water vapor monitors. The data from these instruments was qualitatively evaluated to determine if the data that they provide is consistent with phenomena observed in the facility.

TWo types of calorimeters are used in the i scale facility - the sphere calorimeter and a complex calorimeter. Several sphere calorimeters are installed in the facility. The complex calorimeter is located in the 315*

chimney directly below the'HCU floor. As expected, the calorimeters have provided temperature profiles which are similar to profiles arising from adjacent thermocouples; yet are smoother curves which appear to pea; a later time. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the similarity between a thermocouple trace and an adjacent sphere calorimeter. The more gradual temperature increase indicated by the calorimeters in indicative of the

, character of the heatup rate that equipment would exhibit in these areas of a full scale facility. Since the sphere calorimeters are significantly less massive than actual components, actual components would respond even more slowly to the surrounding environment.

Continuous and multiplexed hydrogen and oxygen concentration measurements are provided in the i scale facility. The instruments providing these measurements performed well during repeatability tests.

1

~

I i

l 3.2 Conclusion i i

As indicated in the preceding discussions, the data arising from the i scale test facility has indicated very good repeatability in virtually all instances.

As will be indicated in later portions of this report, when the test data appeared to be inconsistent with the results expected, various tests were subsequently rerun for confirmation. The results from such additional tests illustrated the high quality and repeatability of data from identical tests.

Due to the quality of the test data, it is planned to utilize production test results without application of any additional conservatisms.

4.0 ASSESSME!fr OF VARIED PARAMETERS In order to assess the effect that various parameters in full scale facilities may have on the nature and magnitude of a hydrogen burn event, individual scoping tests were developed to assess: high steam flow rates, discharging hydrogen through LOCA vents, different hydrogen generation histories and grating. This section will detail the results of each of these tests.

4.1 High Steam Flow In order to determine if the presence of steam, injected concurrently with hydrogen, adversely impacts the resulting environment, a test was run which introduced approximately two to three times as much steam as was previously used in the repeatability tests (i.e., Tests S.05 through S.05.2). This scoping test (S.05.3) utilized a hydrogen injection rate which modeled the Base Case A hydrogen generation history as predicted by BWRCHUC. This hydrogen history was introduced to the facility concurrently with a high, constant steam flow through 8 ADS spargers and a sparger simulating a stuck open relief valve (SORV) at the 330' azimuth. Figure 13 provides the steam injection history used in one of the repeatability tests (i.e. , test S.05.2). Figure 14 indicates the constant steam injection used in Test S.05.3. Whereas, the steam flow rate varied in the repeatability tests from 90 to 185 ACFM, the steam flow rte used in scoping test S.05.3 was held constant at greater than 300 ACFM.

The peak temperatures which were measured during this test are identified in Table 3. The temperatures measured indicated a peak temperature of approximately 400'F occurred in the 45' chimney. The values in Table 3 indicate that the peak temperatures for test S.05.3 are well within 15% of the mean for tests S.05, S.05.1 and S.05.2. This indicates that there is no significant effect from steam on peak temperatures.

A review of the data in Table 3 indicates that the circumferential and radial temperature distributions are unaffected by the presence of steam.

The global pressure increase measured during the burn was comparable to that measured for the repeatability tests (i.e.,4 P(S.05) = 2.95 vs.A P(S.05.3) =

2.93 psi).

A review of the data arising from the sphere and complex calorimeters supported the conclusion that steam does not have a significant effect on the hydrogen burn phenomenon.

4.2 LOCA Vents One of the two hydrogen generation event scenarios evaluated by HCOG postulates that a protion of the hydrogen generated may be introduced to the containment from the drywell through the LOCA vents. This would result in a more uniform hydrogen distribution throughout the containment than would arise i~

due to hydrogen injection through ADS spargers only. Three identical scoping tests (S.06, S.06.1 and S.06.2) were conducted to assess this effect.

Similar to the previous tests, a Base Case A' hydrogen release history was modeled and introduced into the facility with a concurrent constant steam flow of approximately 86 ACFM. The hydrogen / steam flow was injected through the 8 ADS spargers and LOCA vents. The flow was divided to allow 70% of the flow to the spargers and 30% to the LOCA vents.

Table 3 provides the temperature data for these three tests. As indicated by the variation data [i.e., (range /mean) x 100), the receatability is within the 15% acceptance criterion for all but 4 of the 46 thermocouples with at least two measured peak values greater than 200'F. The average variation for this series of tests is less than 9%.

The data in Table 3 indicates that the circumferential temperature profile is changed due to the coincident injection of hydrogen through the ADS spargers and LOCA vents. In all three radial (i.e., 3 , i- and 3/4- radius) locations at the 45' and adjacent azimuths, the temperature decreased. Thermocouples T203 and T205 provide examples of this temperature reduction. In contrast, the peak reaperatures rose in both the region of the 140' sparger and the 315' chimney. Thermocouples T229 through T232, T283, T284 and T285 provide examples of this temperature increase.

These tests (S.06, S.06.1 and S.06.2) indicated that hydrogen release from ADS and LOCA vents will tend to reduce peak gas temperatures, but circumferential1y spread the area influenced by the resulting hot gases. 4 Therefore, the production test matrix discussed later will include a test to define the thermal environment with the hydrogen flow split between the LOCA vents and ADS spargers for each of the plant configurations.

4.3 Gratina The area above the suppression pool in Mark III facilities typically has areas with grating to allow access to this region for maintenance. The presence of grating supports the potential for flames to separate from the pool and attach to the grating. In the i scale test program, no evidence of this phenomena was observed. In the 1/20th scale test program, flames were seen to lift off

' the pool surface very late in the transient and become attached to grating where they continued to burn. This phenomena was of concern since this could potentially increase the temperatures that equipment near the HCU floor would expect to see.

, In order to assess the effect of grating, two scoping tests (S.07 and S.07.1)

. were conducted. The injection history and method used in the previous tests I

were used (i.e., Base Case A' hydrogen history with concurrent steam injected via 8 ADS spargers and LOCA vents).

As indicated by the thermocouple data in Table 3, the presence of grating has an effect in that it redistributes the thermal plumes in the facility in chimneys other than the 315' chimney. A pronounced temperature decrease is evident in the 30', 34' and 37.5' azimuthal regions while temperatures increased in the 52.5*, 56.7*, 142.5 and 326* areas. Since an effect from a small section of grating was observed, grating will be included in production tests. The configuration of grating in each test will simulate the grating present in the full scale facility being simulated.

11-

5.0 DIFFUSION FLAME THRESHOLD 5.1 Burn Terminology Prior to reviewing the threshold scoping test results in detail, it may be beneficial to define the terms that will be used in the ensuing discussions.

5.1.1 Diffusion Flames Within the context of HCOG correspondence, diffusion flames are characterized as standing flames which are attached to the suppression pool surface. As will be discussed later, intermittent diffusion flames exist at hydrogen injection rates as low as 0.07 lba/sec (3) under the proper background conditions.

5.1.2 Deflagration Burns TWo types of deflagration burns have been identified in past HCOG correspondence as occurring in previous test programs - global and compartmental deflagrations. Both can be characterized as a combustion of a volume of gas exhibiting the passage of a flame from the ignition source through a combustible gas volume. These burns result in measurable pressure transients.

Global deflagrations are burns which involve the entire volume (e.g.,

containment volume) while compartmental burns involve only a portion of the available volume (e.g., wetwell volume).

Global dsflagrations did not occur in the i scale test facility.

Compartmental (i.e. , wetwell) deflagrations occurred only during the light-off burns.

5.1.3 Localized Combustion A burn characterized by weak flames burning through marginally combustible gas mixtures, was evidenced in a few scoping tests. This type of combustion did not appear to be anchored to a point in space or structure.

5.2 Threshold Tests Three scoping tests were run to confirm the hydrogen flowrate at which continuous diffusion flames are no longer anchored to the pool surface. These tests were completed to define the phenomena which could be associated with the 0.1 lbm/sec hydrogen release tail that was proposed for use in the 75% MWR release history simulation test.

1 I

l (3) The hydrogen flow rates referenced are full scale equivalent flow rates.

I I

The series of threshold scoping tests that were run varied hydrogen injection location and background hydrogen concentration parameters in order to assess the effect on the threshold.

Previous threshold tests had been conducted in the 1/20th scale facility and had identified a 0.4 lbm/sec threshold limit for diffusion flames. In replicating the 1/20th scale tests, the threshold value was expected to change slightly due to the improved facility (especially sparger) modeling reflected by the i scale facility.

Scoping threshold test S.04 run in the i scale facility replicated the 1/20th scale test. A large initial hydrogen spike with concurrent low steam flow was injected in the facility via 8 ADS spargers. Following the brief initial spike, the hydrogen flow was reduced to 0.21 lbe/sec and subsequently stepped down to 0.14 lbm/sec and then to 0.07 lbm/sec.

• The manner in which this test was run did not allow for a significant background hydrogen concentration to develop. The light-off burn occurred during the initial spike, and flames became weak and intermittent on the pool surface at the 0.14 lbe/sec step. Therefore,_it is apparent that in the absence of a background hydrogen concentration which is high enough to support diffusion flames fed by a low hydrogen source, the diffusion flame threshold is between 0.21 and 0.14 lbm/sec. The different threshold values observed in the 1/20th and i scale tests is attributed to improved modeling of sparger arms and improved overall modeling of the combustion phenomena in the i scale facility.

Since most hydrogen generation event (HGE) scenarios assume a period of low hydrogen generation prior to a peak generation pulse (i.e., due to reflood),

two additional threshold tests were run which allowed for a background hydrogen concentration to develop. These tests utilized a 0.07 lbe/sec tail to define the phenomena which would be expected to occur after diffusion flames are extinguished. These scoping tests (S.08 and S.10), performed with a 0.07 lbe/sec tail, modeled the hydrogen generation history calculated by BWRCHUC for Base Case B. Base Case B was originally presented to the NRC in Reference 2. In response to subsequent NRC questions, it was modified to simulate a 50% (in lieu of 30% as in Reference 2) zircaloy melt. The hydrogen / steam flow was injected into the facility through: 1) 8 ADS valves plus an SORV at the 330' azimuth - Test S.08; and 2) 8 ADS valves only - Test S.10.

During the injection of the 0.07 lbe/see tail in test S.08, localized combustion in primarily the 45' chimney was indicated by the temperature profiles, followed by the reignition of unsteady diffusion flames late in the transient in the 315* chimney. Figure 16 provides the thermocouple trace for T287 which is located in the 315' chimney at the i-radius on the HCU floor.

This figure illustrates the effect of both the initial light-off burn and the diffusion flame re-established on the pool surface towards the end of the transient. Figure 17 shows T308 which is in the 45' chimney at the 16.6 foot level in the i radius. As indicated on Figure 17, the effect from both localized combustion in the 45' chimney and diffusion flames in the 315*

chimney can be observed.

Injection of the 0.07 lbm/sec tail in test S.10 resulted in localized combustion similar to that arising in the 45' chimney in S.08. Due to the absence of the SORV in the 315' chimney, diffusion flames were not detected once the tail was begun.

Hydrogen concentrations in both tests reached a constant value of approximately 4.5 to 5% (dry bases) after the initial spike and a subsequent brief period of hydrogen buildup. An example of this hydrogen profile is provided in Figure 18. The localized combustion and/or diffusion flames which were discussed above maintained the containment hydrogen concentration at this ,

level. The oxygen concentration also decreased throughout both S.08 and S.10.

The containment pressure increase during the burn was approximately 5 psia for both tests.

6.0 DEFINE THE LIMITING 75% MWR THERMAL ENVIRONMENT HCOG's evaluation of accidents simulating 75% MWR cases indicated that the hydrogen would be produced over a long period of time with an average hydrogen production rate of approximately 0.1 lbm/sec. Prior to completion of scoping tests S.04, S.08 and S.10, it was believed that steady diffusion flames would 4

not occur at the suppression pool surface for hydrogen release histories at or below 0.1 lba/sec. This conclusion was reached based on the 1/20th scale j

testing which indicated the threshold for steady diffusion flames was 0.4 lbs/sec and complete extinguishment occurred prior to 0.2 lbe/sec.

l The threshold testing completed by HCOG indicated that in the vicinity of a hydrogen flow rate of 0.1 lbe/sec, two combustion phenomena could occur.

Either steady. diffusion flames could occur at a hydrogen flow rate of 0.14 lbe/sec, or localized combustion could occur at hydrogen flow rates of 0.07 lbe/sec.(4) HCOG elected to evaluate the thermal environments which would be produced by both of these phenomena in order to select the release history which is most thermally limiting for inclusion in the production testing.

5 In order to e sluate the thermal environment produced by sustained hydrogen production above the diffusion flame threshold value, a scoping test (S.11)

, was run which used the Base Case A' hydrogen generation history coupled with a 0.14 lba/see tail. The hydrogen / steam flow was introduced into the facility via 8 ADS spargers and a simulated SORV in the 45* chimney. The SORV was placed in this chimney in order to create a limiting thermal environment. The 0.14 lba/sec tail was injected for approximately 6200 seconds (full scale) to simulate a 75% MWR release history.

This test also evaluated the effect that containment sprays have on a hydrogen burn environment. The sprays were initiated when the average temperature of 4 specified thermocouples was greater than 185'F. Figure 19 reflects the temperature profile for the channel which averages the four thermocouples used '

to actuate sprays.

Peak temperatures during S.11 occurred in the 45' chimney immediately above the HCU floor near the steam tunnel (approximately 530*F). This occurred not only because the extra sparger was located in this chimney, but also because containment spray was effectively blocked from the chimney due to flow blockage. A pronounced radial temperature gradient of abcut 200*F was also l exhibited in this chimney.

Temperatures in the 135' and 315' chimneys (open chimneys) were much less severe than the 45' chimney. Spray actuation occurred at approximately 500 seconds into the transient. Radial temperature gradients for these chimneys existed but were not as pronounced as the 45' chimney.

' Burning during the test was characterized by continuous diffusion flames anchored to the pool surface.

l 1

(4) The orifices which control the flow of hydrogen into the 1/4 scale test l facility are designed to vary the flow rate in increments of 0.07 lbm/sec steps.

15-4

-..-_.-----,---__,-.~.__..._m+ ,,_,,,..,--,_-_m,.,__-_e ,m..,_ . _ , , - _ - - . . - _ _ , - , . - - - - - - - .

1 Containment pressure increase during the burn was approximately 3.7 psia. The peak pressure exhibited by the Base Case A' history exceeded the Base Case A' pressure increase as shown in Figure 20.

i A final scoping test was run to complement the results of test S.11. This test, S.09, used a Base Case A' hydrogen release history with concurrent low steam injection coupled with a 0.07 lbm/sec tail run to simulate a 75% MWR history. The hydrogen / steam flow was injected into the facility through 8 ADS spargers. This test was expected to result in localized combustion rather than diffusion flames on the suppression pool surface based on results from i scoping test S.10. The intent was to determine whether S.11 or S.09 produces a limiting thermal environment.

Similar to S.11, intermittent diffusion flames were present on the pool surface throughout the event, though the flames appeared (visually) weaker and more dispersed in S.09.

The temperature profiles for the 45* chimney were lower in S.09 (approximately 300-400'F) than S.11 (approximately 400 - 500*F) for the Base Case A' portion of the burn. Temperatures were comparable for the two tests in the 315' i

chimney except for near the steam tunnel where S.09 indicated slightly elevated temperatures for the Base Case A' burn. The 135' chimney reflected similar initial burn profiles for both tests. The temperatures exhibited in the tail of each test verified that the S.11 test (tail = 0.14 lbm/sec) provided the limiting thermal environment.

L 1

o. .

7.0 PRODUCTION TEST MATRIX The production test matrix is provided in Table 4. As reflected in this table, there will be six production tests for each facility configuration.

The recovery portion of the Base Case B and C' hydrogen release histories will be developed to reflect the subject facility's core configuration. In ,.

addition, all production tests will be conducted with 50% blockage to vertical flow at the 17.2 foot level plus for those facilities with sprays, additional blockage at the 29 foot level to provide for a net 100% blockage to spray.

The chimney which simulates the equipment hatch will be 35% blocked at the 17.2' level with no additional blockage installed at other elevations.

Grating will be present in all production tests simulating the subject facility's configuration. In contrast to the production test matrix provided in Reference 2, Table 4 reflects a full complement of Perry production tests.

e,

1

8.0 CONCLUSION

S The scoping test program has significantly improved the current understanding of the hydrogen burn phenomena. Several key points which have been clarified by this program are identified below.

1) Gas temperatures are much lower than those identified in the 1/20th scale test program.

2) Global deflagrations did not occur. Compartmental deflagrations occur as light-off burns. Localized combustion burns occur at a rate which maintains the global hydrogen concentration below 5%.

3) Intermittent and weak diffusion flames can occur on the suppression pool surface at hydrogen injection rates down to 0.07 lbm/sec.

, 4) Combustion phenomena observed at low hydrogen injection rates are

{ significantly more benign than previous deflagration evaluations suggested.

5) Decreasing temperature is evidenced both radially and vertically (except in regions with vertical blockage) as distance increases from the drywell wall and suppression pool.

6) Temperatures are reduced in areas exposed to containment sprays.

In addition, the scoping test data review has indicated that the spatial distribution of velocity probes at the HCU floor appears inadequate to define the peak local velocities, and, therefore, several additional probes will be moved to or installed at the 1/4-radius.

The scoping test results reflect lower temperatures and lower peak values for other key parameters then were identified in previous testing program. This is attributable to the quality of both the data measured and the 1/4 scale test facility design. The results reflected in this report conservatively model and characterize the hydrogen burn phenomena postulated to occur in BWR '

Mark III containments.

4 4

- _ _ = _ _ _ _ - .

References

1. HCOG (Hobbs) letter to NRC (Denton), "i Scale Hydrogen Combustion Test Program", HGN-012, dated August 12, 1983.

2. HCOG (Hobbs) letter to NRC (Bernero), " Hydrogen Release Histories and Test Matrix for i Scale Test Program", HGN-031, March 13, 1985.

3. NRC (Bernero) letter to HCOG (S. Hobbs), dated June 24, 1985.

4

TABLE 1- ORIGINAL SCOPI.NG, TEST MATRIX

• TEST STEAM W./IDCATIm SPRAYS / GNFIGURATICH NO HIST mY CF ACFIVE SPARGERS CD3 D S SIMEATTD REMARKS W

S-1 "A" 9 (8 ADS + 329') PERRY TESTS S-1 THR002 S-3 TO ARERR REPEATABILITY S-2 "A" S-3 "A" S-4 INITIALLY AT CIMFIRM THRESHID H 2 '

1 IJH/SBC STEP ETDW POR DIFfUSICN DOWN TO THRESELD PU MES l S-5 "A" CINaRRENT STTAM /H2

, RELEASE l S-6 "A" 8 ADS + IDCA VENTS ETDW SPLIT BE1HEEN ADS SPARGERS AnD IDCA vmNrS .

(70% SPARGERS, 30% IOCA VENTS) i j S-7 "A" 9 (8 ADS + 329') GRATING INSTALI2D ABOVE POOL FROM 318' TO 332' S-8 "A" 9 (8 ADS + 329') y IN G EASED AREA BED GAGE INSMLL AT ELEVATION 17.2' S-9 "A" 8 (7 ADS + 28') RIVER BEND REPEATABILITY WTIE mnrsRS S-10 "A" S-11 "A" S-12 "A" y ONWRRENPSTEAM/g j S-13 "A" 7 ADS + IOCA VENTS EYDW SPLIT BE1HEEN ADS SPARGERS AE IOCA VENTS (70% SPARGERS, 30% IDCh VENTS S-14 "A" 8 (7 ADS + 28') V V GRATING INSTALI2D ABOVE (1) As provided to NRC via HCN-031, 3-13-85 POOL FRCH 28' TO 44'

Tabl9 2 - Final Scoping Test Matrix Test No. Hy Steam / Steam Sprays / Omfig. Remarks Hist. Hist. Ral. Inc. Coolers Simulated S.01, 02, 03 A None 8 ADS + 330 Off Perry Now considered shakedown S.04 Stepdown Im Otnst. 8 ADS 'Ihreshold test S.05 A A 8 ADS + 330 Tests with concurrent steam S.05.1 A A B ADS + 330 S.05.2 A A 8 ADS + 330 V S.05.3 A High Const. 8 A N + 330 Increased steam flow (Factor of 2-3)

S.06 A Im Const. 8 ADS + IOCA S.06.1 A Im Const. 8 ADS + LOCA S.06.2 A Im Const. 8 ADS + IOCA -

S.07 A Im Const. 8 ADS + IOCA Grating above pool in 315' chimney S.07.1 A I m Const. 8 ADS + IOCA S.08 B + .07 Im Const. 8 ADS + 330 V Tail below threshold S.09 A' + .07 I m Const. 8 ADS On per EP Tail just belcu threshold to 75% MfR S.10 B + .07 Im 03nst. 8 ADS Off Tail below threshold S.11 A' + .14 Im Cbnst. 8 ADS + 45 On per EP Tail above threshold l to 75% Mid S.12 C' Im Const. 8 ADS + 45 Assess repeatability with i

sprays and all blockages installed S.12.1 C' Im (bnst. 8 ADS + 45 S.12.2 C' ~ I m Const. 8 ADS + 45 V "

TAB [E 3 PEAK TMPERA1URE , .

RANGE RANGE T/C ELEV RADIUS AZIM7DI S.05 S.05.1 S.05.2 MEAN S.05.3 S.06 S.06.1 S.06.2 MEAN S.07 T200 11.2 1/4 34 425 400 420 6 41 0 330 350 400 19 310 201 37.5 360 370 350 5 380 370 360 395 7 300 202 40 375 400 370 8 380 400 360 400 12 350 203 45 375 380 390 4 385 370 350 350 6 350 204 48 370 330 360 11 370 350 310 330 12 330 205 52.5 375 375 370 1 375 320 310 320 3 380 206 56.7 305 290

• 5 275 280

• 270 4 300 207 67.5 * * * - * * * * -

• 225 127.5 250 250

• 0

• 240 240

• O 250 226 1 31 240 250

• 4 230 *

• 250 -

280 227 135 21 0 230

• 9 21 0 220

• 230 4

• 228 138

• 200 205 - *

• 220 * -

• 229 142.5 200 21 0

• 2

• 21 5

• 250 15 270 230 145.5 * * * -

• 205

• 230 11 220 231 150 * * * -

• 230 250

• 8

• 232 153

• 200 * -

• 235 21 0 230 11 240 233 157.5

• 200 * - * * * * - *

• 248 172.5 * * * - *

• 200 200 0 200 249 175.5 * * * - * * * * -

• 250 180 * * * - * * * * -

• 251 183 * * * - * * * * -

• 252 187.5 * * * - * * * * -

• 253 190.5 * * * - * * * * -

• 254 195 * * * - * * * * -

• 255 198 * * * - * * * * -

• 256 202.5 * * * - * * * * -

• 257 210 * * * - * * * * -

• 258 225 * * * - * * * * -

• 275 285 205 205

• O 200 200 * * -

• 281 303.75 * * * -

• 205 * * -

• 282 307.5 200 200

• 0

• 250

• 210 17 250

• No peak tabulated either because peak was below 200*F or thermocouple responded as if wet and any peak reached occurred after time of maximum hy&@i injection.

1 of 3

RANGE RANGE '

T/C ELEV RADIUS AZIM11H S.05 S.05.1 S.05.2 MEAN S.05.3 S.06 S.06.1 S.06.2 MEAN S.07 -

T283 31 0.5 200 21 0 200 5

• 260 250 240 8

• 284 31 5 200 200

• 0

• 240 230 250 8 240 285 31 8 205 21 0

• 2

• 240 21 0 230 13 220 286 322.5 250 270 280 11 270

• 250 280 11 260 287 325.5 310 350 290 19 300 320 300 300 6 350 208 11.2 1/2 30 41 0 380 400 7 395 400 375 400 6 290 209 37.5 325 325 300 8 300 320 300 350 15 280 210 45

• 290 270 7 *

• 260 250 4

• 211 52.5 300 280 270 10 250 270 260 260 4 290 212 56.75 260 -

260 270 250 260 8 260 234 127.5 205 200

• 2 200 * * * -

• 235 135 200 * * -

200 * * * -

• 236 142.5 200 200

• O 200 * * * -

• 237 150 * * * - * * * * -

200 238 157.5 * * * - * * * * -

• 288 303.75 * * * - * * * * -

289 307.5 205 200

• 2

• 230

• 210 9 230 290 315 200 200

• 0

• 200 200 200 0

• 291 322.5 200 200

• 0

• 205 * * -

200 292 330 260 250

• 4 270 260 250 245 6 270 213 3/4 30 340 340 330 3 330 350 340 350 3 290 214 37.5 31 0 290 270 14 280 290 280 320 13 240 21 5 45 275 280

• 2 270 260 * * -

• 216 52.5 270 280 260 7

• 260

• 240 8 240 217 56.75 260 260

• 0

• 250 * * -

240 240 135 * * * - * * * * -

• 243 157.5 * * * - * * * * -

• 259 180 * * * - * * * * -

• 260 225 * * * - * * * * -

• 293 303.75 * * * - * * * * -

• 295 31 5 * * * -

• 200 * * -

• 297 320 * * * -

210 220 * * - *

• No peak Fahdated either because peak was below 200'F or tbammmuple responded as if wet ard any peak reached occurred after time of maximtun hy&ci injection.

2 of 3

RANGE RANGE , ,

T/C ELEV RADIUS AZIMmf S.05 S.05.1 S.05.2 MEAN S.05.3 S.06 S.06.1 S.06.2 MEAN S.07 T181 10 1/4 303.75

• 230 * -

220 300 270

• 10

• 182 307.5 220 230

• 4 220 300 260 250 18 260 183 310 200 220

• 9 21 0 290 250 250 15 240 184 315

• 250 200 21 250 250 260

• 4 230 185 318 250 * * -

260 250 250 250 0

• 186 322.5

• 31 0 * -

• 300 260

• 14 310 187 326.25 340 400 340 17 330 320 300 300 6 370 306 16.6 1/4 45 360 350 350 3 330 350 305 330 14 355 308 37.5 380 390

• 3 350

• 350 385 9 320 309 52.5 330 320 31 5 5 3?0

• 300 310 3 300 332 127.5 240 240

• O 230

• 230 250 8 250 330 135 * * * - *

• 205 * -

• 333 142.5

• 200 * -

200 * * * -

• 377 285 * * * - * * * * -

• 380 307.5 * * * -

• 220 * * -

• 387 315 210 200

• 5

• 240

• 200 18 200 389 322.5 250 255 220 14 230 280 230 220 25

• 310 1/2 45 310 31 0 300 3 300 310 290 310 5 290 390 315 * * * - * * * * -

• 311 3/4 45 305 300

• 2 290 295

• 290 2

• 391 315 * * * - * * * * -

• 410 22.3 1/4 45 380 380 370 3 350 370 350 360 5 315 430 135 210 205

• 2 * *

• 210 -

230 487 31 5 * * * - * * * * - *

• No peak tabulated either because peak was below 200*F or thermocouple responded as if wet and any peak reached occurred after time of maximte hyi@i injection.

3 of 3

Table 4 -

PRODUCTION TEST MATRIX

• i

! TEST H2 REL. STEAM H2/ STEAM NO. HISTORY SPRAYS / CONFIG.

RELEASE RELEASE COOLERS SIMULATED HISTORY LOCATIONS P.01 C' Low Const. 8 ADS + 40 Off Perry

P.02 8 ADS + 40 On Per EP P.03 8 ADS + 135 i P.04 8 ADS + 330 I P.05 v 8 ADS + LOCA P.06 B V y 8 ADS + SORV

. G.01 C' 8 ADS + 30 Off Grand Gulf i

C.02 8 ADS + 30 On Per EP G.03 8 ADS + 120 G.04 8 ADS + 315 G.05 u 8 ADS + LOCA

{ G.06 B 8 ADS + SORV V V '

i C.01 C' 7 ADS + 30 Off Clinton 1

C.02 7 ADS + 30 On Per EP i

C.03 7 ADS + 120

C.04 7 ADS + 325

C.05 "

' 7 ADS + LOCA 't C.06 B 7 ADS + SORV V I

R.01 C' 7 ADS + 225 On River Bend R.02 7 ADS + 320 R.03 7 ADS + 30 R.04 7 ADS + 120 R.05 p 7 ADS + LOCA v V j R.06 B 3/ 7 ADS + SORV I

1

.. n. P..... -. ...: :,...:. ......*-...."-*

i i

.1. ... ...e 8. . ..

. . . ...... .I

...... . . .. . ....I. .. . .. . ... .

..... .. ... .... .. . . . .. . .. .3

-

.: :." .. *: g.:?

. .... ... .. . . ~... ....

= .  :. .: t.:n . . .

.5.,,

U . . * *

.ii. . .

l .~.:

. C.4 .. ,.. ' .

F"*.

8 *

~" ..  :.:. :s:: .: rii L ..

O '# * ';* * " .

M p

N .y

' " ?Ib ' ' '

. * .. *4..

%e **

g e

. s

t.:'

, ,,. ":t. .

r. ., . . .

g. .. .

..s. a O*j  % . . . .. . . . . ... . .

r.. -: -"

i *

.- ,,ss."  :. . n:

Q e .  ::. = ..

u.ti.:

. .a.=.

... .l.:.: . :- ....-. . .. ..... .: f. . . :. . .- ...

D. M ... . . .

m

. ). , ..

.. ....E. ... .

H,

..l.

t

...... . . .C.

:.:.g :::= .: . ... ... ... . . .

. . .g .. . . . . _ . . .. .. . . . .

.s .

n

.- :n: =:; ur: n:- ..:: *

. E,. ...: . n:- ": n r:

a n:-

. . l s

.. _ . . . .. .- y r.

. . . : .g :n..., :.. u 7 .g g... n

.

.,n

.., g.. .

..g ... 4 y

,, =,..,  ;. .

4 ,_, ,,

7,n 2 . . .

... . _ ..,___ .4 .

.c .. . . . . . ... . . ..... s. ..

. ....t.t u.

_.... s. . . . . ... .. . . .

.. .... ..... .. A. ..... .

.. . . . . . ... . . .. m.. .. - e_se= . , . ..

...... :3 ..

. . , .as

_ eur.... ..o

.:n ....

.,. . . ..:s.. . . . .

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

.. .. . _ . . . _ . . = ..s.. .

.:- *21 ... . * * * * * ....: . ::"!.* .::.

3.::: : E" *:

T t.. ......

I f 1

**:.  !.g,., W*1- -

• 4

>!O  !*;* *!.. .T " n* .*

. I t

3. .  : *; ,*ys.6. . . .h.* , . .. * . ..; ..

f . f .

. 3. .:

.....=.l

a. . .::.  :'

(  : '

s s. s. . ar:n a  ;....

t. l. . . . -

1. .

I C j i.

l -

l *V -

T-

. .;  ;- .8 . J~ . 4:. *:

~ .O. . ,-

f- '*?

U .

g e.s @ .

*C...".

. .:.* n.

m L ,.e .

i. .

gg g g . .

g y

• C ' . t

n . : .1="  % .C wei .- . =:

! n .-  :.- -: 8

!' . .E OO .. .

. . 3* . . ._ s-'.. . .). $. . .. l, cc ..

eO 8  : T se - 6

.i -  : ::

I' . ' .t  : A- -t e

Oa a t

. L U ..

tC 3 (

>= 3 *

) "C A .  : .....

I. .. -- ' .[- *41-

. l.

.[ .:. *

,... g g

, i 3. -

i i J. \; .

. I. .I

• f .

g g .

g .

g .-

_y

. *. . _ . . . 8. . . - . . .

t a 3

8 *. l

.t i,

.a

. s  : -

1

. 8 N,

g . - -

t  ; '

, t. . - .. -

; e 8  : '

• i 1, 6. .. . i-

• f

...g..

,y . . . .. .! . . .

1 .

?

_.,8'

}'. . .

._..g..... f.

t .

5 I . ,

S.

6

. $' .? I . . I e e

= ... _ .. . . . . .

.g. . . . ... .

. . s. ,.. . . . . t.

. 8 9 t, 1 .

{ .

a

,. l' . .

• 1

. i s .

. i.  :. i. -

i 3

_4. - - &.. ..;... .I _ _ 4 _ ;. . . - '

i

. . .i .,  ; - :

l .

g

...3-_ .

g .

6 . .p .

... .. . . , . ... .. .r.

e g7-

- i .

l

: i

• l 1  !

l

.e . c. .

e. m. i m.

- t

. r. - ' ' a 6 -. . - --- . - - - ---.

---

r -

'-- - - - 8 -- --

- t.- .

8 t *

. ... ~. - ...4.._ i

-l . , .

' 1 -

..e 8

e' I -

( 3MM llO L.IV i3N._33H.  : -

t

.i , , . . . . .. .

. . . .. . , .. . .. ,. . ... t. . .. .

_L *

. . ._ i . .. i  ;

L .!

(

. .. ..A._ ..J..._.

4

l .

FIGURE 2 - BASE CASE A INJECTION HISTORY - SCOPING TEST S.05 I

l 2.4M

/\

n z

?

I  !

N L

- 1 v4 b O . 1 .

G -

I .

l .

J

(

0.W W:43:N.13 TIME (SEC ) -> W:38:N.13 EPRI - EFFECT (F CGCSENT STEAM MITIM TEST W. S4 TEST MTE: 224Y4 START TDE: 13:32:24.6 i

milEM 4. M I M M i N Dt2 1.932iM l

i

( FIGURE 3 - HYDROGEN INJECTION -

SCOPING TEST S.05.1 l 2.4N A

m J.  !

z  :

I I N ,

I-3 .

v

( w -

e .

(D E l I .

4W , I l W:43:20.M TIME (SEC ) -> 000:B:20.98 N - WHENT SUI ADDITIM - FIRST REPEAT TEST E. S4 HST DAE: 234Y4 START TM: 12:W:24.7 BiMINDtM t.000 im lgl$1 pgem 1,333 la

FIGURE 4 - HYDROGEN INJECTION -

SCOPING TEST S.05.2 l

l l

l 2.4#

/

(  ;

a [L z

I ,

\ L s

v 9 e ,

( ,< ,

G g .

l I ,

6.006

" l GN:03:26.N y

TIME (SEC ) -> 400:38:N.N alCG EPRI - MWENT STEAM ADDITION - SECM REPEAT TET E. 945. 2 TEST MTE: 3H4Y-65 STARTTM: 14:19:24.6 miMINIM 0.He IM Mi MAXDUI 1.732 lAll O

I 8

r FIGURE 5 1 TYPICAL TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR THERMOCOUPLE WHICH DRIES DURING TAIL l 426.7 A

n O

O hl 8:4 v

9 10 N n

. . . . _ _ .W _ _ _ . .-_-- - - - -

-17.8 008:21:40.13 TIME (SEC ) --> 408:56:40.13

^

EPRI - EFFECT F CERENT STEAM ABITI(M TEST le. S45 TEST NTE: 224Y-65 STARTTM: 13:32:24.6 T250 MDmul 3.7 MCC T256 MAXDtM 101.4 EGC

I

• 4 FIGURE 6 i TYPICAL TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR THERMOCOUPLE WHICH DRIES DURING PEAK l

f

I 426.7 -

4 i A 2

^

O O t

hl  !

Cl

\

1 O

! M

-17.8

, N8:21:#.13 TIME (SEC ) -> N8:W:#.13 EPRI - EFFECT (F CGCERENT SBN ANITIGi TEST 10. S 45 IST MTE: 224I4Y-85 STARTTM: 13:32:24.6

T3M !!DilitM 42.4 N GC T3H !!AXDUI 196.7 NGC 1

l l

1

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

f -

FIGURE 7 - PRESSURE TRANSIENT

[ TEST S.05 30.W l

A n

s 4 H

0) 8.

v f

u n.

_ ] -

14.M 400:E:N.13 TIME (SEC ) 4 W:EN.13 EPRI - DTECT (F CKHENT SEAll SDITIGi llST W. 54 TEST MTE: 3-fl4Y-E START TM: 13:32:24.6 Pi# ImmtM 16.619 PSIA PIM IIAXIM 19.573 PSIA i L

- - - - - - - - c

e .

I FIGURE 8 - PRESSURE TRANSIENT TEST S.05.1 o 30.W h I

^ l 4

H 0)

[ G.

v l

& ^

,e a, .

14.W i l'

W:03:20*98 TIME (SEC ) -.)

2 '"

- FIRST REPEAT TEST TEST h4TEy PIN e g7,3g4pgg4 {,Wg12:  : 7

FIGURE 9 - PRESSURE TRANSIENT TEST S.05.2 M.m b

4 H

to '

(L 1 v

(

,e .

EL _ >

14.M m

03:N.N O

TIME (SEC ) -> W:E:8.N RICO EPRI - CWCHDE SIEAM AMITH - SECM REPEAT TEST W. S4.2 l

1EST M1E: 3 HAY 4 STMT TM: 14:19:24.0 PiH MINDUI 16.75 PSIA PiH MAXI M 19.5 E PSIA

( .

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

i '

Figure 10 - P..500

( PRESSURE TRANSDUCER PROFILE -

TEST S.05.2 -

i N.m '

b n

4 H

C @

0.

v O

h \

L _ J  !

14.M W:03:N.N TIME (SEC ) --> W:B:N.N O .nsoo EPRI - CRCLERENT SEAM ADDITIM - SEM REPEAT HST 15. S4.2 TESTNTE: 3H4Y4 SNT TDE: 14:19:24.4 P5N MINDUI 16.485 PSIA P5N MAUM 19.287 PSIA t

l

l

• ? *-

• FIGURE 11- TEMPERATURE PROFILE OF CALORIMETERS BENEATH GRATING IN 315' CHIMNEY v

1 N

O

\d O

v i i '

a b

-17A

' O m:8 MAG TIME (SEC 3 -> m : 3 & .g.

. .e DE-MTBE Gl4TDC N E5 E OGIEY -E E 99 15ME! fNIHB SDRT TDE: 14:1t&4 l

E84 MDul deJm E84 MAXDtM 78.8 B C l

4

FIGURE 12 - TEMPERATURE PROFILE BENEATH

'( GRATING IN 315' CHIMNEY l 426.7

/\

/%

O O

tal ,

A i'

(D

,4 . . ii g p...,

J =-n .._::. -

-17.8 M8:21:44.43 TIME (SEC ) --> 408:5:44.43

( EPRI - AISITIHl. GRATIlE IN 315 MC OGEY - TEST N0 S 47

) TESTMTE: thDHB STE TDE: 14:16:24.4 i

tis 4 MINDEM 39.7 ECC TiB4 N dim IN.7 ECC l(

O

.____,.m . _ . . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ . , , _ . . _ , - _ _ - - - . . _ _ . . _ _ . - . . - -

J .

( FIGURE 13 STEAM INJECTION HISTORY AS PREDICTED BY BWRCHUC AND USED IN S.05.1 ,

1 2M.M

/\ ,

n E

EL U -

4 v

7 sn N (

w W

I t.H - J W t#:03:26.N O

TIME (SEC ) --> Nt:38:N.N gico EPRI - CGICLERENT STEAM ADDITI(N - SECM REPEAT TEST E. S4.2 TEST MTE: 304Y4 START TDE: 14:19:24.0 212 HINDtM 1,54ACFM 512 MAXIM 15.37 ACFM n

F GURE 14 INCREASED STEAM FLOW RATE AS

.U.S E,D , ,I N,, S . 0 5 . 3 I BN.M A

a I

h.

O E

v

,A 24 (D

I 4.N . a. .

1H:03:24.21 TIME (SEC ) -> #6:38:29p.,,

EPRI-CEMENT STEM ADD.-HIGH RN3N m) TEST 5.S-45.3 '

TEST MTE: 3-JIN65 START TIE: 14:N:24.4 i 511HINIM 3.91ACFM Eli N I H 317.9 ACFM

FIGURE 15 TEMPERATURE PROFILE IN TOP OF 45' CHIMNEY B 42g,7 4

A l l

^ l O

O f kl A

v

O l 4 L- >J

., AAL83.M.

k.NA

_.1 t * - tm

-17.8 .

612:30:2.23 TIME (SEC > ->

• 413:44:2.23 l

l ,

EPRI-flRST SCOPE TEST FOR CASE B RELEASE,1EST E. S48 STARTTM: 14:16:23,8 TEST Mits 18-JtH45 T416 MINDtM 44.8 E C T414 W I M 345.8 B C i

l.___..____..__ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _

FIGURE 16

( -

TEMPERATURE PROFILE ILLUSTRATING REINITIATION OF DIFFUSION FLAMES ON POOL SURFACE I

osmar.a name 1 sw ass

• eNsMY \

i t

1,. J .

8 426.7 l  !

A .  :

n O

O l hi

. O l l v  :

l b l

m 1 N ..

l b - , :- - - - .-.-l

. w_ .: k$h L- -- - - :..

-17.8 ,

i 412:34:2.8 .

TIME (SEC ) -> 913:44:5.23 i EPRI-FIRST SCOPIM TEST RR CASE B RELEASE, TEST E. S-48 i TEST MTE: 19-JllH5 STARTTM: 14:16:3.8 i

T287 IGNIiUI 37.9 E CC T287 lintM 45.9 ECC 4

I i

o, _

s i

FIGURE 17 _

TEMPERATURE PROFILE ILLUSTRATING  ;

Peak Burn And Subsequent Localized Combustion

\ L*ama %auwe e.macaraam c-=e*rD'~. no awar ==o m = W L

)/ Wts

_i_ r W_tsf cWR)

- m ,

I 426.7 i

O J

^

O O

! Id

• l O O -

j 19 i . i . . . .

-. . _,E .

I j.

-17.8 l 812:34:5.23 TIME (SEC ) -> #13:44:9.23 EPRIf1RST SCOPE TEST FM CASE B RElBSE, TEST 10. S 48 TEST M1E: 18-JllHl5 .STMT TM: 14:16:23.8 T300 MINDDI 44.4 E GC T348liAXI!tli 364.0 ECC i

i

( l FIGURE 18 BACKGROUND HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION l 14.000 A .

^

X

' I O

l .

3,1gdM VlMM eAf &MNN_ .= -

g p ,. -

G

) G 1 -

! I I

-2.000

l. '

til:12:19.23 TIME (SEC ) -> #11:22:19.23 4**

EPRIf!RST SCOPIE 1EST FM CASE B RElBSE,HST 2. S-48 l

HST MTE: 18-AlHE STARTTN: 14:16:23.8

-4.222 WLX N002 NAXDUI 5.479 WLX H062HINIM .

4 i

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

a .

l o4 FIGURE 19 CHANNEL REFLECTING SPRAY ACTUATION 3

TEMPERATURE PROFILE 1

1 i

l 426.7 .

e i

b  :

l l

^  ;

l O O i hl l l

i Cl

v I

1

! v4 G A d) L F \ _ . _ .

a .. - .&_..

l

-i7.8 l M5:iS:42.E TIME (SEC ) 4 #7:16:22.0

! mt!+11 EEASE E 75 PEmi EN TH. JUST ME d

! E ST W E: 9-JLL-95 STARTTM: 15:47:24.1 i, D01 NDIDtM 44.7 E CC TNiMIM 119.2IEC 1

l l

i 1

s - .1 FIGURE 20. FACILITY PRESSURE COMPARISONS ,,

BETWEEN BASE CASES A & A -

i e a ,,. c m . n ' O u )

EM -

i i

e / -

4 /

H l W

' IL l

w / ,

O Y* l i

I

\

^

3 / '

IL M J u.. / W:3 W:RM.E TILE (SEC ) -> .

e R4eGEBESEE REHHHHE lENMit 3MME E N TDE:'18:#:N.9 PNSImWul W.B PEA PIN MXDul 8.5 PM Oase Case A ( S. OS. 2)

Attachment 2 - Instrunentation Layout Drawings for 1/4 Scale Facility

-,-e

InsTrw., ear thT:

e Gas 16emc~r es t 5 a( Sut[ ace Ther==ocoa.p les b y Raji. 7ax 2 V Tar.1 hea (tux gages '2 Grand Gulf Layout Elevation 7.0 ft # cao ,.,,,,gy, q TV4 us* 3 0

@ Pr<uan reuasd.<<<u- d.

h W "TV f AMf*3 $

M* Sjy suo ( X id,'eJes SDS Mers s'n ferr y Ci~)--* man .c /

h add itoed 4t[ItJt 5.pige r Tr48 . j Fi%

1. SIM 88% g TIM Mi# agu s ** rn .

2N 3 K u Jsv1 /w 'M a6h,"

2 CA 4%p" # v.gs T.'F" lT 'fSe t FO 7 /4g 1 Rdded thas + claueu , T 94m unrd h y e me a E vs soon " - by tien. I wone gmancEs sisc

/ TJss PRELasstARY

"=n='~c====

MELE FOR FAenaCAis0N o or o.

A r

a.

T l ,- om ome.

erjub.

• I tstl. "

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH

.---- 5 8 55 --- --

L'** '55" yg o 3 L o y a r a '* o c. r ~ p,)  ! , & - (

• l' 8 .. s > - -

l,--~,..... -m TV2 G,. 4 I tes* o, go

_% f .,  %**'f' 's .T. g si sstoce r-oe

.TasTrum T liar:

. San 'tkumece p te 5+L o  %<.uzot velocity 4 m ( m % $V[m arr.) 4-Grand Gulf Layout Elevation 8.0 ft o' (* ** O 1s,

.hs sa.

- usee E

j

-O of 8'aned 9'fl <

uTies

"*Q..w

.e, y,Q '

GEC

< e GN]

) W- ke."'TEK '.N. , q' -

'l / t 90*

vin vets t ,_i _ ,, .; n _ i, w .1_ , n , , , ,,

I i IbddeJ'has + ch@s -

' , t 99med +.jse J sen aEvssenes " Ib omne 'assuesse gaamcas FUELameaRT REL( AS(O OR FAenCATE)se

- e,. v o - -

o, e, ne lT o. 7'/i

780' FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH

, usso y

.p.- esse INCTRUrt!^)TATrort t A'/00Y 1*- s

• gg*I i -

I

. ,/=!ry T;--'.~tm.

• . ..,. f.A

.. . ., .F

$sitis E' op.. 10 W N0. U'D** ?.r.u 55a, .or 4

JasT, r tier:

k s tLer c p es r to

> L.rf-ce Tfier%ptes 'f +@

v ToTat hcd (As, geg<s 3 T Fad oa.< Tees ,5 Grano Gulf Layout Elevation 10.0 ft + Calor xTc,s 4 n

0*

,,. g o Hor.m..T.4 velocry f

• 1. 1", N- Es2 s

• e % ,Tg'tal ()

Tim, saw ,.rtee, 619e Woc.*r7 mK / sa .+s a cas mt: s (co r.) L

... w .o., e-* s.,,

y g,y;c c'*',4 .A . 's a c=s s~ri: g (~tr ) 5

,. s > . , ""* , 7. ,

,. s-o a .<.--., <o.g sas,- e

\Nrm 'vn,* ess 'rn. ass

.,se,lese,,'nue rue y, *' e x..o:xn sn ,in .r togy.* 6e an., u.p;.a ;

270*- . .

3 IA/ nr /e <wm -

5,3 f . - 5.w 3iss .,

.4 g y- 1 a s r r > r- et er** tu. ,

1 A m T w + ch ,a Jr $4fluha ele e eso ne we smen - o e, amne home,

.ottaA cas teens ,

A8eder 6ff9 PUIE LameAftv ftELE ASEO 904 FASAaCATI0ee s.ss

• g

/ cus.cas, = = a*-

or

" {'t [3 c ./ 9 (A m emax. taeai a (.c "W

t. + saw p .5-a caso, -oer FACTORY MUTUAL IESEARCH

, M*'.', lit, c3 835* A 2- ) ._

2ts tite Mile F Nn **'* 's) *Ys

• 8* *? ssi sV1 e n 9) ' .' f

• 0 '

c. ' ---

. . . . . - gr

-s / ? , '. _

j N 3,4 E I. 3 34h

• o, io 2*' fM. W,' " . , . . , t&'~. .

"lasTrumca IAT :

. hs %er c. ,r,s fg -

Grand Gulf Layout Elevation 11.2 ft

1. 0 sso. g MT T2sI y' p T2og,%? as" e 1. 4 e.s.. % , r u-T lay,..: f,r

(**s

. p .

g,,.s , ,

' t2e D2 *

?"; *** 6 .

• r*3 *'aa -

L G . Asi T2 = ' 1;,, %  %  %

,, .' , ' . ,7 N s N ' , '.'i.c

. ...y  %.. , . ,

.s

• • br=,

I Trn/ _ _ _ . ,

9

,e-4,

.9o*  !

fR . t eL a u ,/ re a L/> p ab_ n Em atenin -

/ /

i

• e.

-u.,

at we soom - a 1r v.a n, o Ihanom.

m sou mances

//p[/ L.e Ters

'.g *

./ .- u a . ,o. ,

p g

.c.,c.

o o*

Nu4.

G = -

Tes. Tesa +-Ts.e .. a.-==*

\.' , . *

.. . . . . mar

• FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH

. * . . . . ; , . s. ..

9 ,,y .  : -- - - -

rar. =

g

. i ,, . T erreami nrosiic .* i: '#Y

.-T259 W *

't* * -r * - - n.

fY

'Clr * .'95

~

20E T * . y so/ttr n ** 'o - ~

Ads

• ig,* tyi.,. Set E T. 4 eaEUF gp ff' W $9" P-l~ V' ,".. 77~.'~~. . -

P e

IaETomea fsr; e [yot Nrmec.wp let 34h Grand Gulf Layout Elevation 12.5 h 15.2) ft.

,e m

, ,,e 7,e, e' kn er s2 s' (Tsa6) (Taes) 1 owr e-cies to ascer GeJ #$.3*El I

,e >

~.__

I ~

. E nL - maJM Ala/} AL A. 2 l M A^~

f EddeJ tm e c.h4Fs ' . 'T MFr* *f et atvis m * ' iby -

een omne _:

WOLE Esme,maasCES asinder T327 eautaneam artaans raemecariose

/ ene es, eme cm in e, T.  %,f .,7, ,

e osse 3, w I h

\ / FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH 315*

TAJLTW M r AJTATt041 / #U' N .

%. XQ . 7~m-

' a,u . . s essem or fr

• 7 '*~ DT 7Y ,,f N7

LJru e.T tiJ:

. Gs ti,mpes '4 t@

~

p GJovi.xTut 2 O Hor; w w =kdry 3 e WiTiod veloury E Grand Gu!f Layout Elevation 13.9 ft e 3c ., zu,,,any c.un.c,em w neFF

, O'

1. N m 1,s *

- 7 501 ,

_J3ar >

, s W3ti N T5e4 T545 185*

~M __.

. p - - 03 4 T32T' l

31 o- - - -

3 Its nsus J -- --

U125 4

1 et-~. Jet n 2 kuk.> 33m'M

• MJ4J h . < N -1 r Ji (ep - v.wp p i n a viun - = s, ihn, -

nottaasects Lanes.

T318  %

wlM nettamaasiv  ;

'em in e agtgasto[ross er 1 Faenscarsose o qp,jn, f Tiit n'"

\,/ . FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH

• t t;')Ot eT 3*dsh's'M T Mi on *l'.Q g ,

... c. v

.u.~, ,

..i. : . . .

l sto set t i. 6 sexo ,

or jo Nn.W .

P o*.*..*P.oF. s . v. w,~~...s l,

~

JesTru T thT :

. cm %. , ,t,, 4 +@

> Leb h c rt., 2 m Gas sas.p l* .eg {mir.) 2 G uoT cacase cren To <<erw Grand Gulf Layout Elevation 16.6 ft

, o*

s u.3 2n.

m N ss 5 #5

• T5as s i.s- , [xy,.y 1,. >c "L.s-

.s s ya*

T183,5547,6588 Tin / T389 g Tla. 53o6 1 85* T519

' Tf75 2)o- -

1_ tL - A re_ Alu m A .L. > zestaP T54o 2 4 a4 arf m, . <3 ,s '

Ir #@usy =M een ne ve ' '

5, bai. wo ysg.

gnasscas Pettmosaarv mEttasto son paeneca,soaa Tsde o

• e,- 2/,,p'.

nei 'N lT N e== n. i*ui

. n e. o.a.

T533 j 7* ,Og m= .

'8 " ' FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH T315 ', #55

'~

smss* 2 aJ:n o re r. '.~gr - r . s ., :I;'t

~ ' '

% _- G,3.l,, - --

,,,.i or ie

,ma o me' W r !

e.

M Wf l o. < . . , - s. Wy;3 .

1 l

l I.E .T ser :

~ !

• k tLe n .c- pas y+t E Gs awly [= tr) i 1

e %sT.*uJ +l dry 4 0 G u ~ $ % (co T.) 4 1 i Grand Gulf Layout Elevation 20.0 ft

, 0* ($ EE I E l [

en 3'5 - won es*

[ aT fL3 (r degt..

D ~~~

Ten ws n {/

t tu'- .. g _ _

1 cOs  %*

4 mw u __ , it m-

• • c-,

i

= .E mm . . . g g BOL masscE3 L RELE ASEO FOR FASAsCATM

//.Tuo,wu.

p == w wa o

n

. .(,,

5 m h9 ,.

' FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH Tws , a wus. ess

[A2STR.OM( AITA'00 M / AVi

• O

]

~ ~ - . _ 3 7.

9 v , . ', -

.; s- _

,,,.s 1st E T. F.

Or it

• M' ~ P'" P " . . .

s.

TaiTru e.T lh7 :

. Gas kr co.e as s 9 e V.a:aa veloc}y 6 m % s.~r siq (~tr.) 5

@ T.Ta pmsmac i Grand Gulf Layout Elevation 28.4 ft

,o' ($ es.s $d f  %

75af ars-

• 585

'+.<

[

'Y' av .s a.

a

'1 D- (r*3*J7*n _9a*

1 m -._m n .re-. s.-

em et ve nana = a e, h w  %

,me w .

Tsst wsst m ~

sso%g f?' 6ssa

• 5'* =-

= . -

ans.u ro .

- (.T l T CATOS$

o=#dr -

o i

p f o

• FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH

.s ms,wsse, as. - - - -

ars* rse .

!A'!~

resu Inru- 0 Mi *1TATto!)

\ y *"d

. ,. **r.. - -

T-y .. 9/tv/.e *

• _

• , sHE.T. y ggo op. do aus Y '

o., Y' . . . ra rysca r e

_*'s

r*

k%. eat thT :

. Gas A rp c- plet 2+g -

0 Gas sa rCag (ca r) i B at saaplin3 [mutr) 3 03 TV c=-ma i Grand Gulf Layout G ,c, nor coucee.rro to aces Devotion 35.0(& 42.0)ft 0*

1. N 15* q s*

TM Gm

'+

76elo /

f M -

64ss .

4 svs-1 ,-a FAr.eak ~*

" De.**s qo

• 1 a.L - .. J v t L FF ' '.n and Fla -

A W Ymet 11 48hM 4 ens (TLLs) M' #N"" Br omne womse Q,

v ,0 bt unemascas M.

(sur) N RELEASED FOR FASAICATIOee Mhh

_ u Sp

. LT !, Ones.1,,[g n

FACTORY MUTUAL FESEARCH

,e- 7.,a,0 ,,,,

2'AJf't'u rf r aA a:'s oaf f 4'/:*:'T f*="" *"""* M . . ..... s -7

, 4 ?.n* a t YIt'

• _

sse t t, 10 120*g eums OF If o==w= W -'

~

yH e'.

r e

O ssos 1 sArament L. s+ :

W g g, T6fs e s'a. g ,, . G . N y te s 4

< s..( 4 % .. _ ,... a vR.4' 4u. 2 3 Crond Gulf Layout innermost Side View: 10.4 ft rod. / 65.2 ft circumf. V T 4-L b*-*#vy* f-

@ P...... T...Ju.,. R

/ CaI.<* <T ee t D-O O GT. pt Ge . f E IhtlT? pined YL % C- $

g. O TC shi 8e&&f6 s-

,r n.- w = = %.

- ~ . ~ , .

1. r- li warEo n .we.m tw

= ww-e, a., wo-3-

rur v, a na _ ,,u,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

rm anw 0-B L7 vas,stn

^ ~43 g' *** p r.

s ut.uu y ras 5 855 **

FACTORY MUTUAL FESEARCH 0- -

_ _ _ _ ~

InsTe om oa rnieo a s iettntrr 1w v. ., e . . .~ . ....... --se+

3- 9 9.,1s, l 9h., f a :. -

360 3b 20 1$0 150 b 0 ""*

Azimuth (Degrees) - ,/ , , ..

e._a u- N,,,

I.34,-.d U.t : .

• C .. T % , .. . ,I,s 74+@

s

< s. .p- . ,,. .

,eu._.w, 1 Grand Gulf Layout Side View at 11.7 ft rod./ 73.0 ft circumf. (1/4 out) U T.4 t ne.+ Vt.~ $

3

+ C-t.,; .te,s q o H.<;3. Vol Wy Pr. L, . '7

)- e %r4l. ! %(...4., Pab es K

+

-e .e Tse. Tsss Tsse 3 P1 [4."plescal fan 16 f.=c.. 3 w see wsrs wsas O CoaTsasammas [se E Coat. d TTis Tene IHI 8 *** "? @ TadiW Tfwr.oc ples n.T fogged (or h C..fc, r'Ja'

+0 Tnsi Tote wee) weso

- .e .e TIM Tle. Tis.

y

c. g. e . e T m . ...,,, n., .,g. <.

CTm Elb U17g U SGo IIF528 saas gyg G7" 3 e 7* Pa m -

gg

,75g.e @ .O 1s75 .O Tssa .e Tsrs yTu . TE*e z u 3 r.r.

ca % ; w.U.6% s. ALI.s F- 11 ME ') cur T i AdJe4 h e r Wes N eleMed WJni I' b seeTast. 7s81 *T *

• 73,g 8'" #E " "

tw One WDess 1- .......

TP'8

• * * * * . . . . ' .,.788

• • * *3**II

• *8* * + T213 -7F15 w . e******

• TPa6 + TPoe votemasacas

. Tras

=

~

- T . v,., su, 7 M PWIELaseafty mELgagge FOR FaemeCatong a...,/

e ,33o m 9 7,';' e t,*: e is' s ",': ~~ ~

n

- y Av ~,1.

n .,

F ese

• Telt 0 '*- FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH g- _- _

Iss o gL teet{ As 7 rr a:e *I L A'fouT

,. d '. t '- A e

{, .. . ." N. , .. M gla,I tv '#'- ' ~

) , , , e i we t. e 3g0 300 240 180 120 80 0 o, r Azimuth (Degrees) =r.

g 9.,y . p;a . ' noo.E; .e,

e 1

LAr ..A t:.s+:

• Gas %.< .a (Isa P.1 + @

>SJ..e TL., ... p l. . 3 7 b .L.e~ekers t 3_ Cropff 1.oyout . Side V.ew at 13.0 ftgd./ 81.3 ft circumf. (2/2 out) l TW Ga**

$T&ss [ Taso bT&as Gase 1 Ca t.i.msker s 2 3_ O V t a. V.t.a 4y i 1 .

m e a e W ,4...l V,1..~.J, a I

csa sso sus O Coas4. [ pas b suc. 1

• • ~

@ Nals.pte .I Gss C.~s. 15 N E-0 Odorske7u- lo e @

20 - a @ Iml M J bfMS mo'T b)gtJ hr l kr7 oa[*gestaTs*.

g 7 890 T159 T518 3 G) 15 -

'T A .J n No II A L . :w no. n, 2 cA* .4*J = y sh, r. . p = , y ofp f9 44 1 " P ' Tw + <%'s r ' - ' ---

TM.Tygt y we d i 2-D e (l ) T2st - 7234 ] st g sem na ve n- - -

l g

,.. .g_ ..... n as

,W" "

g ..mar 4 " e a'=a .

33 *&498 . 4 5139 n

SIM ###O 645$ OIOS N' " 8bELEASE PDA FAeesCataDue ggg .

T o ,. .*

g 3 } ll

• • • 8* h*=ma=. er

'* 1* .

• 8# . 6875 G8se saso Gits G300 D** ** a====8 I D*

Gale, Fate* 7tle,Sito

. n , m n. FACTOftY MUTUAL FESEARCH s- _ _ _ _ __ _

Inc. Tau or en ,n e n n t,vfn N

,. i ; s ' . .~ r~~,. . -.wd

• .liw i(w -

.s- _

0 . . . . i w , ,, -y aso Joo 24o too 120 ao o ,

Azimuth (Degrees) ===

wW, m n j- --

. c.e r i: .,- .

1 I

c 1 e

T=4% t Gst :

TYF O fro t a f> or Omea er 5 - Cr. h....q l,s 20+@

e Ve<%.'. l Val..".4 7 6 m m U:pe...JC...

l C. <.. t i

n. Grund Cuff Layout Side View ct 14.2 ft rod./ 89.3 ft circumf. (3/4 out) O2Tv C4= <4s F

_ O T.Su3et Tks u..r!<s e.T logyd (or hery G Vgurus'v.

.o .e .e T59r Tgo T515 i WSSS gfgo Wiif '

25 -

l l .

T441 T4sr we9: wess 20 - ** =4 l

i

.a 739.,sr91 75gy G =Tm 00 -

• . Tsst ,M s , g _ _ J q s yy a, , v,ag yw i w nac,che een "

. t mwe =Nk M -729s. T26 'T2sv Tig E + Tyst. T

• O'" *b 4.Q. e.- . . ' . e e . g-' Mg ".20-Trir . . . . . ges D- .e Ti95* W197 Pattamenser mLgasso con raamscAtions Tv' ne m a=' = -

o-

• e,-

- - {r f' -

m o- p.

CM CM CP3 FACTORY MUTUAL ESEARCH s- -= --

INSTL U W A/747to A1 4 d '/O 07 f-5 W .a -*w, , , . - .% T-C sin u l4 *. ,,N!rv!'

• 0 , , , , , war, q 360 300 240 180 120 60 0 or r Azimuth (Degrees) ='s gg( ' y -

u ,,,,, ...c-

y t .

t

'fa sTru e,T list:

. Goa ibn .c..ap f s fa 4 beher e*Ce** Pbf 9 v T.Tal LJ kent {tuv gaps i ,

35 Grand Gulf Layout Outermost Side View: 15.5 ft rod. / 97.4 ft circumf. T paale &n d

,r Gator *e.Utu Z so -

25 -

l 20 -

ft 15 - ,

L LYas.anh ' H ' tus To = F ' 41 %Rs iU tA M i

een AMed Tant e %)es m E ve nana." "

[ T.

Dr a/seAQ 0e - '-

g ga.ea. .-

,0 -

M* RELEASF.O FOA FAaneCAfsOes es.na ", m g;,

88n, TAN MIM F ill, sin,,R tH gg

sgg4 g sitr ssio

• 6 w (.T e,. o 0***

9,,'f, .,

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH 5- __ _

INCTrs'Mr^fiATIo M l Atjew T l .a r'. _ ' s .i. T.m..,. h 41uo ltso .o . * . .,,,,,,

M 240 18O 120 60 0 OF 5 Az.imuth (Degrees) -

gg, ~

- _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _