ML20134G961
| ML20134G961 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1985 |
| From: | GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134G952 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508280175 | |
| Download: ML20134G961 (47) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ s t T Attacinent 1 REVISED STUCK OPEN RELIEP VALVE BASE CASE AUGUST, 1985
-Gulf States Utilities River Bend Station - Unit 1 I
1 8508280175 850819 ~'P PDR ADOCK 05000458 A pg s-
~
INTRODUCTION Two base case analyses performed to determine the River Bend Station .. (RBS) containment presmire and tarperature response to hydrogen release and subsequent deflagradon burning have been perviously subnitted to . the NIC (Ref.1) . These base c.ases were the stuck open relief valve case (90W) and the dryv ell break case (DWB) . A revised DWB base case analysis to evaluate the offect of reducing the steam flow, revising the drywell/ ADS sparger flow aplit, modifying the radiant heat transfer beam i. length, and reducing the crywell bypass leakage has also been subnitted (Ref. 2) . As requested by the NBC staff during the August 12, 1985, meeting with Gulf States Utilities (CSU), a revised SOW base case analysis to 4 quantify the ntsober of hydrogen burns which may occur in the inta M iate contairunent volume has been performed. 'Ihis revised analysis used two inta M iate volumes, reduced hydrogen burn criteria for areas outside the wetwell, and revised hydrogen release rates. Except as noted herein all other CLASIX-3 input was unchanged. i HYDROGEK/ STEAM RELEASE
~
'Ihe hydrogen and stean releases used in the revised SOW base case were the sane as the original SOW base except for reduction of the non-mechanistic tail to reflect the RBS core size. As in the previous SOW base case, the initial blowdown was obtained frczn a River Bend
, , 1 SORV base case, the initial blowdown was obtained fr m a River Bend Station specific analysis using the MAAP cmputer code. Blowdown without core makeup was continued in this analysis for 2000 sec. at which time the core was approximately 3/4 uncovered. At this point, the BWRCHUC, which employs a mechanistic core model, was used to predict the hydrogen and steam releases with a 5000 gpn reflood timed to produce a 30% clad melt. This reflood occurred at 3400 seconds and the BWBCHUC analysis was continued until 3645 seconds. During this boildown and reflood phase of the analysis, 436 lbn of hydrogen had been produced. Although the hydrogen release rate predicted by the BWBCHUC are above the threshold for diffusive type burning, we have conservatively assumed that these releases only produce deflagrations. At 3645 seconds a non-mechanistic model was used to obtain the renaining 60% zirconium-water reaction. This model developed by HOOG, uses an energy 5 balance between the heat removal capability for a highly blocked debris bed and the core decay power, the heat of oxidation and the stored heat in the core material. We non-mechanistic release rates were continued until a hydrogen release equivalent to 75% of the active core zirconium was reached as required by 10CFR50.44. The HOOG non-mechanistic release rate of 0.1 lbn/sec was based on the Grand Gulf core size. For this analysis, this release rate was reduced by a factor of 0.78 based on the nmber of fuel rods in the RBS core relative to the Grand Gulf core. During this portion of the transient, the hydrogen release rate of 0.078 lbn/sec. produced a total of 1792.2 lbn of hy&ugen. h e total hydrogen production used in this analysis was 2228 lbn which is actually equivalent to 81.3% of the active core zirconium. We hydrogen release time history is given in Table 1.
%e mechanistically calculated stem releases used for this analysis were the see as the original S0W base case. For the non-mechanistic
, portion of the transient, the stem flow was asstuned to be equivalent to
-36.3 Mw which is: consistent with the steam release rates used in the revised DWB base case analysis (Ref. 2) . The steam tape.rature used in this analysis was the s ee as in previous analysis and corresponds to the prevailing RW pressure. h steam release rates are given in Table 2.
OCND@NENT MODEL
%e previous SOW base case analysis used a four node contaiment model (drywell, wetwell, intermediate volume and upper contaiment) .
H e revised analysis uses a similar model except that the intermediate voltne has been split into a lower intamaalate volume and an upper inta==hte voltane. A schematic diagram of the five volume model used in this analysis is shown in Figure 1. S e arrows'in Figure 1 represent flow . paths between cmpartments with the arrowhead pointing in the direction of allowed flow. As in the ' previous Sow analysis, the wetwell volume is defined to be the voltune between the suppression pool surface and the HCU floor (El. 114 ft). He lower intermediate voline is defined to be the volume between the HCU floor and the next floor
-(El. 141 ft.). %e upper intenaediate volume is defined to be the voltane between the 141 foot floor and the refueling floor (El. 186 ft 3 in.). We upper contaiment is defined to be the volume above the refueling floor.
OMER INPUT We cmpartment initial corxlitions are given in Table 3. The flow path parameters for the revised SORV base case are given in Table 4. Passive heat sink data for the lower intemediate volume and the upper in6mvliate volume are given in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively. As in the revised IXm base case, the beam length used in radiant heat transfer have been revised based on the formulation given in reference
- 3. % e revised beam length are given in Table 7.
We hydrogen ignition criteria used for the wetwell was 8 v/o hydrogen with a carbustion empleteness of 85%. To allow propagation of wetwell burns into the lower intermediate volume, the upward flame propagation criteria was set at 6 v/o hydrogen. Tle hydrogen ignition criteria for all volumes above the wetwell was set at a more realistic value of 6 v/o hydrogen to allow hydrogen burns to occur in these volumes. We canbustion cmpleteness for these nodes was reduced frcm 85% to 65% to correspond to the more realistic burn initiation criteria. We minimum oxygen volume fraction required for ignition and the volume fraction required to support canbustion were 0.05 and 0.0, respectively which is the same as previous analysis. Heat re.cval due to operation of the contalment unit coolers is conservatively assumed to be frcm the upper intermediate volune only.
RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS A sumary cf the results cf the two SORV analyses is given in Table
- 8. Plots of the revised SORV base case tmperatures and pressures for each contaiment volume are given in Figures 2 through 11. Plots of the volume fractions of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and steam are shown in Figures 12 through 31 for the revised SORV case.
During the period of hydrogen release, 39 burns occurred in the wetwell volume for the revised base case cmpared to 42 burns in the original analysis. In addition, there were 29 burns in the lower intamvliate volume cmpared to no burns in the original analysis. The first four burns were initiated in the wetwell and propagated into the lower intermediate volume. The existence of burns in the lower inta = v h te volume is due to the lower upward flame propagation and hydrogen ignition criterion used for this volume. Another effect of burns initiating in the lower intamvliate volume was to force oxygen into the wetwell to support wetwell cmbustion. The total hydrogen burned in the revised analysis increased by 270 ltm which may also be attributed to a lower hydrogen ignition criteria. The peak t m peratures in the drywell, wetwell and lower intermaliate volume increased for the revised analysis while the upper intermediate volume and upper containment ternperatures decreased. All pressures in the revised analysis increased slightly. Since this re-analysis was performed to assess equipnent survivability, a burn was not forced after the end of hydrogen release due to the hydro,m concentration in each volume being
t 1
-below the ignition criteria. Inclusion of condensation, as suggested by the NRC staff, was not included in this analysis. Consideration of condensation would further reduce the severity of the deflagration themal enviroment, r
This analysis provides a conservative estimate of the contaiment , pressure and temperaturo response to deflagration type hydrogen burning. The Hydrogen Control Owners Group Quarter Scale testing performed to date (reported in Reference 4) confirms the conservative nature of the CLASIX-3 cmputer code. In all testing performed to date the only deflagration burns observed have been the initial light-off burn for each test. In no instance have serial deflagration burns, as would be predicted by CLASIX-3, been observed. However, in.two tests, (S.08 and S.10), sme marginal deflagratiori was observed. This type of cmbustion , was characterized by weak flames burning through marginally ~ cmbustible t ( gas mixtures and was effective in maintaining the global hydrogen concentration below 5%. These tests indicate that the serial global deflagrations at high hydrogen concentrations predicted by CLASIX-3 do not occur. 'Ihe extent of the conservative nature of CLASIX-3 will be exmined as part of task 12 of the IKIXi Progrm Plan. h ', > L. I _ . _ s
REFERENCES
- 1. RBG-21,218 dated June 7,1985 frm GSU (J.E. Booker) to NRC (H.R.
Denton) .
- 2. . RBG-21,454 dated July 5, 1985 fr m GSU (J.E. Booker) to NRC (H.R.
Dentm) .
- 3. Perry, H. H. and'Chilton, C. H., Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 5th Edition, 1973 p. 10-56.
- 4. HGN-053 dated August 1,1985 frm HOOG (S.H. Hobbs) to NBC (Robert Bernero).
w-----_-_ - - - - - . . _ _ - - _
TABLE 1 River Bend CLASIX-3 Input SORV Base Case
% @ ed Release to the Suppression Pool FLOW RATE TENPERA'IURE TIME (LB/SEC) (F)
(SE031DS) 2000. O. 249. 2460. 0.022 269. 2560. 0.0434 277. 2675. 0.09 287. 2780. 0.177 294.
.g 2900. 0.3313 303.
2985. 0.374 310. " 3120. 0.3924 322. 3400. 0.357 346. 3405. 5.125 352. 3415. 2.9 383. 3420. 2.54 403. 3430. 2.08 449. 3440. 2.266 501. 3445. 2.225 529. 3495. 0.225 751. 3513. 0.13 781. 3520. 0.05 792. 3555. 0.0 797. 3644.999 0.0 250.34 3645. 0.078 250.34 26624.5 0.078 250.34 26624.501 0.0 250.34 1 l
--^ ~~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_7 , TABLE 2 River Bend CLASIX-3 Input SORV Base Case Stean Release to Suppression Pool Time Stean Release Rate Energy Release Rate (seconds) (lhn/sec) (Btu /sec)
.0. 257.9 307200.
8.51 291.6 347800. 78.1 246.0 294600. 146.54 214.7 258800. 230.4 194.7 235000. 241. 1476. 1779000. 245.8 1370. 1652000. 266. 947.3 1149000. 273.1 865.7 1053000. 306.3 578. 702000. 361.26 356.8 434000. 367.22 342.2 416100. 540.17 145. 177800. 630.61 101.7 131200.
.720.02 76.32 96200.
899.7 39.98 49720. 1085.63 4.26 2851, 2000. .2324 233.27 2000.001 9.25 10768.4 3400. 0.004 4.85 3410. 172.2 209069. 333. 412720, 3420. 3425. 319.8 399670.
-3430. 314.8 397064.
3435. 412.8 525626. 3460. 424.4 526040. 3470. 414.8 565538, 3475. 421.2 578667. 3485. 411.9 573900. 3495. 413.4 582109. 3520. 402.6 575114. 3540. 345.8 495186. 3555. 291.9 417709. 3565. 105.6 151061. 3625. 82.9 118257. 3645. 100.8 143690. 3645.001 36.3 42257. 26624.5 36.3 42257. 26624.501 0.0 0.0
I TABLE 3 River Bend CLASIX-3 Input CeHmnt Initial Conditions, Iower Upper Upper Drywell Wetwell Intennediate Intennediate Containment 3 147,050 220,575 670,181 Volume (ft ) 236,196 153,792 90 90 90 Tmperature ( F) 135 90 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06 O Pressure (psia) 2.98 2 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 N Pressure (psia) 11.22 2
.140 .140 .140 .140 H O Pressure (psia) .494 2
- - ~ - - - - _ . . _ . _
TABLE 4 River Bend CLASIX-3 Input Flow Path Parameters W-LIV LIV-UIV UIV-Cf Maximian Flow Area (ft ) 2481 1582 689 Flow Ioss Coefficient 5.0 5.0 5.0 Burn Propagation Delay _ 1.0 1.0 6.02 Time (sec)*
- Base on flame speed of 6 ft/sec.
Wetwell volume, lower interr.ediate volume, upper intamadiate volume and upper contai.inent are abbreviated as W, LIV, UIV, and CT, respectively.
-- - ---a--
m
'DllLE 5 River Bend CLASIX-3 Input Iower IntarmarHate Voline Passive Heat Sinks Surface- Layer Layer Layer Description, Area (ft ) Ntuber Material Thickness (ft)
Freestanding Steel
- Containment 10,637 1 Coating 0.001333 2 Steel 0.125 Drywell Wall 2,981 1 Coating 0.001333 2 Concrete 0.5 3 Concrete 1.0 4 Concrete 1.0
'Ihin Steel 76,092 1 Coating 0.001333 2 Stee) 0.0166 Concrete 1 ft 'Ihick 1,594 1 Coating 0.001333 2 Concrete 0.5' ;
Concrete 1.5 ft. 537 1 Coating 0.001333 2 Concrete 0.5 3 Concrete 0.25 Concrete 2 ft 'Ihick 7,758 1 Coating 0.001333 2 Concrete 0.5 3 Concrete 0.5 Concrete 2 ft 'Ihick 7,370 1 Coating 0.001333 2 Concrete 0.5 3 Concrete 1.0
I TABLE 6 River Bend CLASIX-3 Input Upper Intomediate Volume Passive Heat Sinks Layer Layer Layer Surface Thickness (ft) Description Area (ft ) Number Material Freestanding Steel Coatirr, 0.001333 Containment 15,956 1 0.125 2 Steel Coating 0.001333 Drywell Wall 4,472 1 0.5 2 Concrete 3 Concrete 1.0 4 Concrete 1.0 Coating 0.001333 Thin Steel 114,139 1 0.0166
' 2 Steel 1 Coating 0.001333 Concrete 1 ft Thick 2,391 0.5 2 Concrete 1 Coating 0.001333 Concrete 1.5 ft 806 0.5 2 Concrete Thick 3 Concrete 0.25 1 Coating 0.001333 Concrete 2 ft Thick 11,638 0.5 2 Concrete 3 Concrete 0.5 1 Coating 0.001333 Concrete 2 ft Thick 11,055 0.5 2 Concrete 3 Concrete 1.0
TABLE 7 River Band CIASIX-3 Input Capartment Dependent Passive Heat Sink Parameters Parannter Cmpartment Value
'IW rerature- Drywell 135 F Wetwell 90 F Imer Intamadiate 90 F Upper In+amaAiate 90 F Upper Contaiment 90 F Radiant Heat Transfer Drywell 11.5 ft Beam Iength Wetwell 21.6 ft Imer Intamadiate 4.8 ft Upper Intamadiate 4.8 ft Upper Contaiment 27.4 ft Beam Length = 3.5 V/A Where V = Cmpartment Volume A = Area of Capartment
TABLE 8 SIMERY OF CIASIX-3 RESULTS Original Revised SORV SORV Ntrober Burns W
- O (0) W 0 W 42 (0) W 39 IV 0 (1) LIV 29 UIV 0 C 0 (1) - CT 0 4
Total Burned W 0 (0) W 0 (lb) W 1590.(1627) W 1311 IV 0 (127) LIV 557 UIV 0 CT 0 (232) CT 0 H2 Rsnaining - W 36 (38) W 30.3 (lb)- W 59 (17) W 44.7 1
-IV 130 (24) LIV 33.7 UIV 60.9 190.6 CT 239 (6) CT Peak Tenp. W 231 (283) W 243 (F) W 2135 (1320) W 2320 IV 422 (1084) LIV 997 UIV 330 CT 201 (1154) CT 139 Peak Press. W 3.3 (12.3) W 3.7 (psig) W 7.3 (24.3) W 11.3 l IV 6.3 (24.3) LIV 8.4 UIV 7.1 CT 6.3 (24.3) CT 7.0
*Drywell, wetwell, intermediate voltune, lower intermediate volume, upper intermediate volume and upper contairunent are abbre4;iated as W, W, IV, LIV, UIV,_and CT, respectively.
( ) - Values due to extension of transient past end of hyi%) release.
'1hese values result frcxn a hydrogen burn which was forced to occur in multiple contairment volumes simultaneously.
o . FIGURE 1, RIVER BEND STATION REVISED SORV CLASIX-3 MODEL Upper Containment (Vol. 5) g----------- -_. _- - __ _, , fnermediate l Volume [ ~~-~~~-------* (Vol. 4) l l , I . Lower I , Intermediate _p, l l l Volume , I l
' l (Vol. 3) l I- l I &
- I Drywell (Vol. 1) , _
Suppression g _ Wetwell
-- Pool (Vol. 2) e % flow allowed in both directions
- flow allowed in one direction
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . hydrogen mixing system flow path
--- --_ air return fan
__.___.___ _ _ _ - drywell bypass leakage
9 9. FIGURE 2 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG.85 DRYWELL TEMPERATURE
'240 -
230 - 220 - / V// , ddyMb 8 W 200 - l )BJ JJJJ /JJdbl4i g' _ 190 - E 180 - 170"- 18i0 - 150 - 140 - 1M i e s i i i i a i s i i a 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME (1000 SECONDS) L__
FIGURE 3 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG.85 WETWELL TEMPERATURE 2.4 2.2 - 2-1.8 - p 1.6 -
+
WS 1.4 -
$C 1.2 -
U 1-0.8 - 0.6 - 0.4 - y t y u L % uu u u uu'L'u'4 u"' o, _ t(( O i i i . i i i i i i i i i 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME {1000 SECONDS)
4 # FIGURE 4 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG.85 LOWER INTERMEDIATE VOLUME TEMPERATURE 1 0.9 - 0.8 - 0.7 - C' [? o.s - 52 gl 0.5 - f,o.4-0.3 - i (( ( ( L kk O.1 - f 0 , , , , , , , , , , , , i 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME (1000 SECONDS)
as e e FIGURE 5 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG.85 UPPER INTERMEDIATE VOLUME TEMPERATURE 320 - 300 - 280 - 260 - g 140 - f 220 - g 2. - 180 - h 1 60 - 140 -
'1 20 -
j a w a -{ h l l ao , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME (1000 SECONDS)
- . - - - - , - .---r y - . - , ,
G e FIGURE 6 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG.85 CONTAINMENT VOLUME TEMPERATURE 140 - 130 - 5 ft 120 -
$ ,1o -
1
@W k\\b\\(\\\\\\
,.. gW 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONOS) l
FIGURE 7 1 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG.85 DRYWELL PRESSURE 40 35 - 30 - m 25 - d- 20 - f 15 -_
.10 -
'5-O , , , , , , , , , ., , , ,
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONOS) i-l l
A. 3' - o4 $L -a .,- FIGURE 8 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG.85 WETWELL PRESSURE 35 - 30 - 25 - d 20 -
$ U muuLJL,ddddJ AAdddt JUJJJJL J 15 '-- - - -
-f 10 -
5-0 8 12 16 $0 d4 28 nWE (1000 SECONDS) , i-t f
F. I FIGURE 9 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG.85 LOWER INTERWEDIATE VOLUWE PRESSURE 35 - 30 - 25 - W 20 -
$ UdLUuJbabMuld3vividVibbd)djd f
15 -- - 10 - 5-O 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECOHOS) .e S
- - - . - - _ - _ . - - - _ _ - _ - - ~ . - - - - - - _ _ _ . - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - . . - - _ . . . - - - - . - - _ . - _ ._ .- _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . - _ . - . _
'e e FIGURE 10 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 UPPER INTERMEDIATE VOLUME PRESSURE 35 -
30 - 25 - W 20 -
$ /LllWuddLbddddddddddddUduJuil
{ 15 -- 10 - 5-0 8 12 16 20 24 28 TiWE {1000 SECONDS) I Li
8 0-FIGURE 11 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 CONTAlHMENT VOLUME PRESSURE 35 - 30 - 25 - W m- .
$ LELLudObtdidb M WUWUM M 15 --
.{
10 - 5-O , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS)
~
l
Wu_ --4 -----4 ._- g
- 4, .e-6 FIGURE 12 GSU/ RIVER -BEND 5 VOL. ' AUG. 85 DRYWELL 02 VOLUME FFUCTION O.21 0.17 -
0.16 - 0.15 - g 0.14 - g: 0.13 - 0.12 - 0.11 - w - 0.1 - 2 0.09 - - h O.06 - ,
> 0.07 -
0.06 - 0.05 - 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - O , , , , , , , , , , , , , O 4 A 12- 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS) ' 8 I
.- ......,-y--. ~ , .
FIGURE 11 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 WETWELL 02 VOLUME FRACTION O.2 - 0.19 - 0.18 - 0.17 - 0.16 - 0.15 - [ g 0.14 - I h p O.13 - 0.12 - 0.11 - [ - w 0.1 - . 2 0,og _ h O.0B - . (
> 0.07 -
ff 0.06 - l l 0.05 - O.04 - [( 1 0.03 - 0.02 -- 0.01 ~- O 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS)
FIGURE 14 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 LOWER INTERWEDIATE O2 VOLUME FRACTION O.21 0.2 - 0.19 - 0.18 - I 0.17 - O.16 - 0.15 -
-g 0.14 -
p O.13 - Q O.12 - [ 0.11 - w 0.1 - 2 0.09 - h 0.06 - 0.07 - 0.06 - 0.05 - ( 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - 0 , , , , , , , , , , , , , O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME (1000 SECONDS)
,.v A- A - 4 e. . -
FIGURE 15 . GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 UPPER INTERWE0 LATE O2 VOLUME FRACTION O.21 0.2 -
' O*19 -
0.18 - 0.17 -
' O.16 -
0.15 - g 0.14 - g- 0.13 - 0.12 - 0.11 - w 0.1 - 3 0.09 - h 0.08 - 0.07 - 0.06 - 0.05 - 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - ! O.01 - O . . . . . . . i i i . . . O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS) I-f i
e . FIGURE 16 i GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 CONTAlHWENT VOLUWE O2 YOLUME FRACTION O.21 - 0.2 - O.19 - 0.18 - 0.17 - 0.16 - 0.15 - g 0.14 -
,p O.13 -
O.12 - 0.11 - w 0.1 - 2 0.09 - h 0.06 - 0.07 - 0.06 - 0.05 - 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - O , i , , , , , , , , i i i 0- 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME (1000 SECONDS)
)
C M -e. FIGURE 17' GSU/ RIVER- BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 DRYWELL M2 VOLUME FRACTION O.8 0.7 - 0.6 - O.5 - 1 0 .4 - r l 0.3 - O.2 - 0.1 -
.O , , , , , i i , i O 2' 4 6 8 10 TIME (1000 SECONDS) t l-i I
I h
- l. -
4 3 FIGURE 18 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 WETWELL H2 VOLUME FRACTION O.7 - 0.6 - 0.5 - La. . - 0.4 -
~2 0.3 -
0.2 - 0.1 - 0 , , , , , , , , , ,. , , , O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS) O..
f f 6 i FIGUPI 19 r
, 76 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 '
LOWER INTERMEDIATE N2 VOLUME FRACTION 1
~#
0.7 - O.6 - t 5 g 0.5 - < i. t O.4 - f W 2 0.3 - 0.2 - O.1 - O , , , , , , , , , , , ,
- i. , ,
O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS)
! h i
r
;- i
- _. . L , . _
FIGURE 20 GSU/ RIVER -BEND 5 VdL. AUG. 85 UPPER INTERWEDIATE N2 VOLUWE FRACTIDH 0.8. , - 0.7 - 0.6 - 0.5 - 2 E O.4 - s
~> @ 0.3 -
0.2 - 0.1 - O i i a a i i i a i i e i O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONOS)
P, - c-FIGURE 21 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 CONTMHWENT YOLUWE N2 YOLUWE FRACTION 0.8 _ N O.7 - 0.6 - 0.5 - if A O.4 - 2 0.3 - 0.2 - O.1 - O i i i i i i e i i a i i 8 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME (1000 SECONOS) l-
FIGURE 22 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 DRYWELL H2 VOLUME FRACTION O.1 0.09 - 0.06 - 0.07 - 5 P O.06 - 0.05 - i 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - O , , , , , , , , , , , , , O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 i TlWE (1000 SECONDS) 1
.s
8' s FIGURE 23 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 WETWELL H2 VOLUME FRACT10H 0.09 - 5 0.06 - A O.05 - O.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - O 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS)
4 's FIGURE 24 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 LOWER INTERWEDIATE H2 VOLUME FRACTION O.09 - 0.08 - 0.07 - 5 G O.06 - - 0.05 - 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - 0 8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME (1000 SECONDS)
.O e FIGURE 25 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 0.1 0.09 - 0.08 - 0.07 - 8 G O.06 -
~
4 0.05 - w '
, 0.04 -
0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - , O , , , , , , , , , , , , , O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS)
4
. .~
FIGURE 26 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85-CONTAINWENT YOLUME H2 YOLUME FRACTION
. 0.09 -
' O.OS -
0.07 - 5 P O.06 - O.05 - 0.04 - O.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - O , , , , , , , , , , , , O 4 8 12 16 20 24 TlWE (1000 SECOHOS) a i un
E 4 e FIGURE 27 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 DRYWELL H2O YOLifME FRACTION O.1 0.09 - 0.06 - 0.07 -
-8 P O.06 -
0.05 - w 0.04 -
- 0.03 - .
0.02 - 0.01 - O i i i i a e i a i i i i O 4- 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlME (1000 SECONDS) i
f~ FIGURE 28 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 WETWELL H2O VOLUME FRACTION 0.28 - 0.26 - 0.24 - 0.22 - g 0.2 - P O.18 - 0.16 - tal O.14 - I ::: 0.08 - (- g guuud 0.06 - N \ 0.04 - , 0.02 - 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS)
.4 s FIGURE 29 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 LOWER INTERMEDIATE H2O VOLUME FRACTION 0.14 - 0.13 - 0.12 -
.1 - r
\
0.09 - a g l pl \, 0.0a - ( g 0.07 - 0.06 - \
\
> 0.05 -
0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 -- O 8 12 16 20 24 28 TIME (1000 SECONDS)
8 - 6 FIGURE 30 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 UPPER INTERMEDIATE H2O VOLUME FRACTION O.09 - 0.08 - 0.07 - 0.06 - f k O.05 - { 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - 0 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlWE (1000 SECONDS) w
4- .4' FIGURE 31 GSU/ RIVER BEND 5 VOL. AUG. 85 CONTAlHWENT YOLUWE N2O YOLUWE FRACTION 0.09 - 0.08 - 0.07 - E A 0.06 -
'k
' O.05 -
Y 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 0.01 - 0 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 TlME (1000 SECONDS) '
]}}