ML20138N552

Summary of 851120 Meeting W/Hydrogen Control Owners Group Re Status & Results of Hydrogen Combustion Tests in quarter- Scale Test Facility (Mark Iii).Attendee List & Handouts Encl

ML20138N552
Person / Time
Site:	Perry, Grand Gulf, River Bend, Clinton, 05000000
Issue date:	12/17/1985
From:	Kintner L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8512240063
Download: ML20138N552 (58)

Text

s

, Regarding HGN-060, staff noted that most production tes'.s were planned to be run with containment spray on and commented that. si.cff may attach more signif-icance to tests without sprays.

In response to staff questions, HCOG said River Bend production tests would not include a run without fan coolers because the licensee considers the fan coolers to be reliable for this type of accident.

Regarding HGN-061, staff said it would provide a letter evaluation of Rev. 4 to the Hydrogen Control Program Plan.

Regarding HGN-064, HCOG said it would like a meeting with appropriate staff responsible for review of energency procedures before NRC completes its evaluation of this letter.

Regarding HGN-066, the staff indicated that there were additional items raised in a September 9, 1985 telecon which were not addressed. Specifically there were concerns regarding initial conditions in the QSTF for both sparger and LOCA vent tests. HCOG acknowledged and provided information justifying initial conditions for the sparger release tests.

Initial conditions for tests simulating drywell pipe break accidents have not been justified.

Staff commented regarding an October 31, 1985, HCOG letter, that in determining survivability of equipment a failure analysis of a piece of equipnent should be made rather than basing survivability on the most heat sensitive components in the equipment.

In some cases, the most heat sensitive component is not limiting.

Staff said that a request for information regarding comparisons between HEATUP and MARCH code calculations of hydrogen generation histories would be issued within a few weeks.

Origin,1 Si rn~1 hv L. L. Kintner, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licenisng

Enclosures:

As statec DISTRIBUTION cc: See next page 1 Docket File NRC POR Local POR PD#4 Reading WButler LKintner Young, OELD EJordan BGrines PD#4/PH PD#4/D ACRS (10)

LKintner:lb WButler NRC Participants 12//b/85 12/g85 t

h220063851217 p

DOCK 05000416 PDR

m-

)

r tr 6

o UNITED STATES 8

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

g E

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\*****pl DEC 171985 Docket Nos.

50-416/417 50-461 50-458/459 50-440 LICENSEES:

Mississippi Power & Light Company Illinois Power Company Gulf States Utilities Cleveland Electric illuminating Company FACILITIES:

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Clinton, Unit 1 River Bend, Units 1 and 2 Perry, Unit 1

SUMMARY

OF NOVEMBER 20, 1985 MEETING WITH HYDROGEN CONTROL OWNERS GROUP (HCOG) REGARDING MARK III CONTAlhMENT QUARTER SCALE TESTS The purpose of the meeting was to hear and discuss the. status and results of hydrogen combustion tests in thefQuarter Scale Test Facility (QSTF) sponsored by HCOG. These tests are one of the tasks in the HCOG Program Plan for confirming the design of hydrogen control systems that can handle large amounts of hydrogen during and following an accident. is a list of attendees. is a handout prepared by HC0G for use in the meeting.

As used in this summary, HC0G refers to personnel in HCOG or its contractor or consultant organizations indicated in Enclosure 1.

HCOG presented the results of Scoping Tests 14, 15, and 16 (S.14, S.15, and 5.16). Tests S.14 and S.15 provide data to evaluate conservatisms in the Clasix 3 Code which computes pressure and temperatu u transients in a contain-ment during hydrogen combustion (Enclosure 2, Sheets 4-17). Although not shown.

HC0G said the pressure transients in S.14 tests were similar to pressure transients in S.15 tests. HCOG observations and conclusions are provided on sheets 6, 7, and 18. The scoping test matrix is shown on Sheet 30.

In response to staff's question, HCOG said that in Scoping Test 13, *.he lesser number of igniters operating was selected to provide a basis for the operability requirements in Technical Specifications. The staff inquired about the possibility of performing an additional test with a minimal complement (1-5) of igniters.

HCOG indicated they might consider such a test at the conclusion r.f production testing.

HCOG also presented results of Scoping Test 16 which was run to obtain temperature profiles inside the 1/4 radius of the suppression pool during hydrogen combustion.

Test bases, configuration, thermocouple locations and results are shown in

!, Sheets 19 through 25. Test S.16 conclusions and the impact on previous scoping test conclusions and production tests to be run are given in Sheets 26-28. The following comments regarding Test S.16 were made.

I

e o

9 Sheet 21, 22 - Thermocouples were moved closer to the drywell wall. Locations oesignated as a fraction of the radius (e.g. 1/4 R) refer to the fractional distance along a radius between the inner cylindrical wall (representing the

.drywell wall in the model) and the outer cylindrical wall (representing the containmentwall).

Sheet 27 - NRC staff raised the concern that repeatability of data, previously investigated at the 1/4 radius, may not be indicative of repeatability at the 1/8 radius. The problem may be more pronounced for LOCA vent tests due to the larger gradient of hydrogen release. The overall issue of data repeatability which was previously unresolved, (i.e., staff does not agree with HCOG position that data is sufficiently repeatable that data may be used without margins),

remains unchanged and may be further complicated by the lack of data to assess repeatability at the 1/8 radius.

Sheet 28 - The scheduled start of production tests (January 1986) is a slip in schedule of about 3 months.

One more scoping test, S.17 is planned to find the effect of large amounts of grating near the suppression pool surface (Sheet 29).

The production test matrix is shown on Sheet 31, and instrumentation for the Perry production test is shown on Sheets 32 through 41. The following comments regarding planned production tests of Perry were made.

Sheet 36 - In order to increase the number of gas themocouples, necessary to improve measurement capability in the 45* ' chimney and at the 1/8 radius, HCOG has reduced the number of sphere calorimeters (from 10 to 0) and surface themo-couples (from 11 to 5). The reductions in calorimeter and surface thermocouple locations are required due to limitations in data recording.

Sheet 37 - The complex calorimeter will be used in limited production tests (perhaps only 1) due to limitations in data recording., Sheets 42 through 48 list HCOG submittals to the NRC. The staff indicated that it would respond to these submittals.* The following coments were made.

Sheet 43 HC0G would like to receive NRC coments on the test facility heat loss calculations based on a HCOG presentation to be given in a meeting in December 1985, prior to submitting the final report.

Sheet 47 HCOG letter dated 9/27/85 (HGN-055) provides a discussion of ATWS and station blackout (580) events as contributors to accidents which can generate large amounts of hydrogen. Staff's initial reaction is that the small contri-bution of SB0 to core melt frequency indicated in this letter appears to disagree with staff conclusions in the GESSAR-II SER. Also the IDCOR program identified 580 hydrogen generation as a large contributor to containment failure.

Sheet 48 Regarding the HC0G letter, designated HGN-058, NRC staff said Sandia tests in this area are not yet completed although the final results may not affect the HC0G positions.

• Subsequent to the meeting this response was transmitted via letter dated Nov. 29, 1985 from R. M. Bernero to Sam H. Hobbs, Chaiman of HC0G.

r a

4

. Regarding HGN-060, staff noted that most production tests were planned to be run with containment spray on and commented that staff may attach more signif-icance to tests without sprays.

In response to staff questions. HCOG said River Bend production tests would not include a run without fan coolers because the licensee considers the fan coolers to be reliable for this type of accident.

Regarding HGN-061, staff said it would provide a letter evaluation of Rev. 4 to the Hydrogen Control Program Plan.

Regarding HGN-064, HC0G said it would like a meeting with appropriate staff responsible for review of emergency procedures before NRC completes its evaluation of this letter.

Regarding HGN-066, the staff indicated that there were additional items raised in a September 9,1985 telecon which were not addressed. Specifically there were concerns regarding initial conditions in the QSTF for both sparger and LOCA vent tests. HCOG ackncwledged and provided information justifying initial conditions for the sparger release tests.

Initial conditions for tests simulating drywell pipe break accidents have not been justified.

Staff commented regarding an October 31, 1985, HCOG letter, that in determining survivability of equipment a failure analysis of a piece of equipment should be made rather than basing survivability on the most heat sensitive components in the equipment.

In some cases, the most heat sensitive compenent is not limiting.

s Staff said that a request for information regarding comparisons between HEATUP and MARCH code calculations of hydrogen generation histories would be issued i

within a few weeks.

tL W L. L. Kintner, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licenisng Enclosures-As stated

^

cc: See next page i

e Mr. Jackson B. Richard Mississippi Power & Light Company Grand Gulf Nuclear Staiton cc:

Robert B. McGehee, Esquire The Honorable William J. Guste, Jr.

Wise, Carter, Child, Steen and Caraway Attorney General P.O. Box 651 Department of Justice Jackson, Mississippi 39205 State of Louisiana Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

and Reynolds Vice President, Nuclear Operations 1200 17th Street, N.W.

Mississippi Power & Light Company Washington, D. C.

20036 P.O. Box 23054 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. Ralph T. Lally Manager of Quality Assurance Office of the Governor Middle South Services, Inc.

State of Mississippi P.O. Box 61000 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 New Orleans, Lcuisiana 70161 Attorney General Mr. Larry F. Dale, Director Gartin Building Nuclear Licensing and Safety Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mississippi Power & Light Company P.O. Box 23054 Mr. Jack McMillan, Director Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Solid Waste Mississippi State Board of Health Mr. R. W. Jackson, Project Engineer 880 Lakeland Bechtel Power Corporation Jackson,' Mississippi 39206 15740 Shady Grove Road Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760 Alton B. Cobb, M.D.

State Health Officer Mr. Ross C. Butcher State Board of Health Senior Resident Inspector P.O. Box 1700 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Route 2, Box 399 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 President Claiborne County Board of Supervisors Regional Administrator, Region II Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. J. E. Cross, General Manager Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Mississippi Power & Light Company P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 l

l l

r Mr. Frank A. Spangenberg Clinton Power Station Illinois Power Company Unit 1 cc:

Mark Jason Jean Foy, Esquire Assistant Attorney General 511 W. Nevada Public Utilities Division Urbana, Illinois 61801 j

Office of the Attorney General State of Illinois Center Richard B. Hubbard 100 Wes't Randolph Street - 12th Floor Vice President Chicago, Illinois 60601 Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue - Suite K Mr. D. P. Hall San Jose, California 95125 Vice President Clinton Power Station i

P. O. Box 678 i

Clinton, Illinois, 61727 Mr. D. C. Shelton Manager-Nuclear Station Engineering Dpt.

Clinton Power Station P. O. Box 678 Clinton, Illinois 61727 Sheldon Zabel, Esquire f

Schiff, Hardin & Waite i

7200 Sears Tower 233 Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission RR 3, Box 229 A Clinton, Illinois 61727 Mr. R. C. Heider Project Manager Sargent & Lundy Engineers l

55 East Monroe Street i

Chicago, Illinois 60603 r

Mr. L. Larson Project Manager General Electric Company t

175 Curtner Avenue, N/C 395 San Jose, California 95125 Regional Administrator, Region III l

799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 1

r l

l Y

i

Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.

Gulf States Utilities Company River Bend Nuclear Plant cc:

Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

Ms. Linda B. Watkins/Mr. Steven Irving Conner and Wetterhahn Attorney at Law 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 355 Napoleon Street Washington, D.C.

20006 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 Mr. William J. Reed, Jr.

Mr. David Zaloudek I

Director - Nuclear Licensing Nuclear Energy Division f

Gulf States Utilities Company Louisiana Department of P. O. Box 2951 Environmental Quality Beaumont, Texas 77704 P. O. Box 14690 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898 Richard M. Troy, Jr., Esq.

1 Assistant Attorney General in Charge Mr. J. David McNeill, III State of Louisiana Department of Justice William G. Davis, Esq.

j 234 Loyola Avenue Department of Justice New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Attorney General's Office t

7434 Perkins Road -

Resident Inspector Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 P. O. Box 1051 l

St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 H. Anne Plettinger 3456 Villa Rose Drive Gretchen R.~Rothschild Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806 Louisianians for Safe Energy. Inc.

1659 Glenmore Avenue Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70775 James W. Pierce, Jr., Esq.

I P. O. Box 23571 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70893 i

Regional Administrator, Region IV i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director i

for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 i

Arlington, Texas 76011 l

\\

l I

i i

i I

i I

h

1 Mr. Murray R. Edelman Perry Nuclear Power Plant The Cleveland Electric Units 1 and 2 Illuminating Company cc:

Jay Silberg, Esq.

Mr. Larry O. Beck Shaw, Pittman, & Trowbridge The Cleveland Electric j

1800 M Street, N. W.

Illuminating Company Washington, D. C.

20006 P. O. Box 97 E-210 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Resident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Pannly at Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Regional Administrator,' Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l

799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 I

Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 105 Main Street Lake County Administration Center j

Painesville, Ohio 44077 Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative 8275 Munson Mentor, Ohio 44060 Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

618 N. Michigan Street Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio 43624 l

John G. Cardinal, Esq.

i Prosecuting Attorney Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047 I

y t

r l

Attendees NRC - HCOG Meeting November 20, 1985 Name Affiliation NRC L. L. Kintner NRR/DL/LB-4 R. W. Houston NRR/DSI C. G. Tinkler NRR/DSI/CSB R. G. LaGrange NRR/DE/EQB H. C. Garg NRR/DE/EQB T. M. Su NRR/ DST /GIB 4

HCOG.

Gary W. Smith MP&L t

Michael Manski MP&L Matthew Rager Enercon Services Dennis B. Hacking

.Enerion Services Sam H. Hobbs MP&L Bob Evans Enercon Services John Richardson Enercon Services J. R. Langley Gulf States E. M. Buzzelli CEI Timothy A. Byam Illinois Power Co.

Paul J. Telthorst IPC Franco Tamanini Factory Mutual Research Corp.

John Hosler EPRI i

i

k i

j i

i i

I i

Handout of Slides Prepared by 4

Hydrogen Control Owners Group for the November 50,1985 Meeting with NRC Staff i

I l

i I

i I

I I

t i

1 j

l

.I I

l 4

f l

I i

I I

k i

I i

i ll i

i h

l, r

t t

,____--.,-.._..-e._,_.___.

/

OBJECTIVES OF MEETING o Provide general testing prograis status Discussion of scoping test results 1

i I

d Present modifications to 1/4 scale test facility instrumentation plan" t

i

- Discuss production test program i

i o Discuss submittals made to the NRC

/

4

/

m - -

-e

-w

-ww--

F.

i i

l STATUS REPORT ON THE 1/4 SCALE TESTING PROGRAff l

o Scoping tests not previously reviewed with NRC i

i l

Test S.14 (September 3) provided data to evaluate conservatisms in CLASIX-3 approach i

i i

j

}

Test S.15 (September 6) was identical to S.14 except

-l sprays were not used l

[

i l

Test S.16 (October 21) investigated temperature

[

gradient inboard of 1/4 radius I

1 o

Facility activities impacting schedule Grating removed after test S.15 Hydrogen replenishment and facility maintenance outage l

l t

Hurricane Gloria caused extended power outage to site l

i i

I l

l Repairs of test data acquisition system f

i Increase thermocouple coverage below HCU floor in the 45 degree chimney I

j o

Data review activities ongoing i

Additional data evaluation is ongoing to support i

submittal of final scoping test report I

t JE.

l

• m-c

-m-we--

%w*ee--w--

weg.,m,e we--w+w-e

- +s s e**a egmewme-m-'r==rwengema-ww1p---aim vvM ess p yr__

i l

TE'STS S-14/15 i

i I

4 OBJECTIVE l

i i

I o

Define the thermal environment resulting from hydrogen j

combustion just below the threshold for diffusion flames l

for comparison to CLASIX-3 predictions Tests to include the effects of sprays and oxygen

{

concentration on the combustion phenomena l

e 3

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

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

r

-- o I

e i

TESTS S-14/15 i

TEST DESCRIPTIONS o

TEST S-14 Case "B" hydrogen release followed by two periods of l

very low flow (below the diffusion flame threshold) for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> each Low flow periods separated by 1 1/2 hour period at

.14 lbm/see full scale (flames on the pool) - This provided low flow data at both high and low oxygen concentrations Total hydrogen release equivalent to 75% MWR Sprays actuated per EPGs 8 ADS plus 45 degree SRV spargers active j

150 degree pool temperature I

Flow blockages and full complement of grating near pool surface installed l

- o Test S-15 Same as test S-14 except that sprays were not activated i

i

</-

k _ -...._

l Tims hai.e

- re-z e */m r~ti sw.c 25 wu

,g g

g,,

.43 A

0

~x

^

v Z

.5 z

N a

g 4

v

. 21 4t vi

.*f z

.,a i

.cS3 t

q 0.N o

TIME (SEC ) ->

S-15 CASE B ETH IEUN TH90 TAR.10 75 PQif lut - E FRAY TSTBATE: 64EP45 START TDE: 15:32:3.6 BillDElut 4.000IM BillAXDtM 3,914 t/pgl

~

HYDROGEN RELEASE RATE TIME HISTORY f

TEST S-15 (N0 SPRAY)

~

3

l i

SUMl!ARY OF OBSERVATIONS TESTS S-14/15 i

1

)

o Flame extinguishment on the pool surface occurred at i

hydrogen flows ranging from 0.025 to 0.07 lbm/sec j

full. scale i

i l

o Early in transient (af ter case "B" release).while ambient f

i hydrogen concentration was increasing, flames could be extinguished at flows up to.07~1bm/sec full scale i

o Plame extinguishment occurred at lower flows (down to l

0.025 lbm/sec) under.high oxygen (-s-18% volume dry) conditions once ambient hydrogen concentration had stabilized at 4.5 volume per cent o

Late in transient, at low oxygen concentrations (9.0%

dry) and stable hydrogen concentrations of 4.9 volume per cent, flame extinguishment occurred at.04 lbm/see o

Flame extinguishment flowrates are unaffected by presenc'e of sprays I

I l

l la

. ~..

SUMMARY

OF OBSERVATIONS TESTS S-14/15 o

During periods when hydrogen flow was below flame extinguishment levels, localized combustion occurred in chimneys above,the HCU floor level limiting hydrogen concentrations to roughly 4.5% dry (high oxygen) and roughly 4.9% dry (low oxygen) o No' measurable def1'agrations (pressure excursions) observed o

Based on gas thermocouple readings, localized combustion, occurred in the 45, 135, and 315 chimneys but appreciable localized combustion was observed in the 45 degree chimney o

Localized combustion more prevalent with sprays activated o

Localized combustion more pronounced with low oxygen concentration o

Highest peak average gas temperature measured during localized combustion was approximately 225 degrees F7, o

Peak average gas temperatures observed during localized combustion are less challenging than the peak average temperatures associated with weak diffusion flames 7

l i

l 2,5 iw w e

r l

E.m 1

re.o I

l hsA zz..

j t i.o

v f

l s.o l

N l

2.o O

^

l G

/, o I l

l

o. o l

-1.Mi 2ti.E TIME

{SEC ) ->

152ti.E S-15 CASE B WITH BEIN TH90 TAIL TD 75 PCNT M - E SPRAY TEST MTE: 6-SEP-E STARTTIE 15:32:23.6 HN2 lHDUI 4.15 WL%

N002II4XIM 5.823WI.X

.c l

MULTIPLEXED HYDROGEN CONCENTRATIONS LOWER CONTAINMENT TEST S-15 I

L I

9.5 m m

=

=

l T*C 1

r. c A 4.o a

X O

f H Q o m

. n.o >

3.o

,4 I

l i

2.e e l

O f'

/so i

\\

i l

-1.000 i

291.65 TIME (SEC ) ->

15291.E S-15 CASE B ETH ELOW TH90 TAIL 10 75 PCNT IMt - E SPBY TEST M TE: HEM 5 STARTTM: 15:32:23.6 H001IWWUI

-4.253 VILX N001IIAXDIE 5.234VILX e

4 MULTIPLEXED HYDROGEN CONCENTRATIONS UPPER CONTAINMENT TEST S-15 l

/o 1

.____-.-._-..--.-__-.-._-._.__..-----._---.-..-..-__-_..-------.?

i i

l i

'Af MIN e

t 8

22.606 2o. o

/ t.. A

_ k i

/h.O n X

\\

M.o 3 k

0

/ 2.0 }

v jo.o N

a'. o O G

c,o O i

4.o 2.460 N1.65 TIME (SEC ) ->

15291.E S-15 CASE B IETH EW TH90 TAR. TD 75 P0li M - E SPMY TETNTE: 64EP45 START TDE: 15: R: U 6 0802IIDm01 8.870 EX 0802II4XDut N.900 EX MULTIPLEXED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS UPPER CONTAINMENT TEST S-15

//

p.

f

'A5'toiw

=

=

l 315.6 l

/\\

5=

l G

I O

l g

l FLAMES ON POOL 9

I i,

i.

i 3,4 i

h

~

r i

i 'iL

,,a L.

J l

l

=-

37.8 s i

l l

261.65 TIME (SEC ) -)

15291.E S-15 CASE B ETH bel.0W THSIU TAIL TD 75 PCE M - E SPBY 1ET MTE: 64EP45 STARTTM: 15:R:23.6 T2HIWWIM 42.4 EGC.

T2H NIH 313.6 ECC

'ej l

l GAS TEMP AT 1/4 RADIUS, 45* CHIMNEY AT HCU FLOOR LEVEL TEST S-15 I2-

O i

l 6on l

l 315.6 jg seu a

96O 111 k*

Q v

bDk Q, FLAMES ON' POOL _ LOCALIZED COMBUSTION k

y~

ABOVE HCU FLOOR b

g y

o i

p

-r' zoo g i

=I ' il kh d

)q 37.8

\\

iaa 291.65 TIME (SEC ) ->

15291.62

~) TAH. TD 75 PQlillR -le SPRAY j

LOCALIZED COMBUSTION STARTTM: 15:32:23.6 AB0VE HCU FLOOR T311II4XDIE 298.6DECC

l

\\

l GAS TEMP AT 3/4 RADIUS, 16.6' ELEVATION, 45' AZIMUTH TEST S-15 i

I3 i

p

)

2 5 A Aita l

315.6 j\\

500

^

On 400 U

(

i Q

.L v

LOCALIZED COMBUSTION 3oc t FLAMES ON POOL G

ABOVE HCU FLOOR i

w K

I M

W b dk

(

i F-y zw e hib-5 iy 37.8 s l

.go j

291.65 TIME (SEC ) -->

15291.E 3 TAIL TO 75 PCNT IHt - E SPRAY LOCALIZED COMBUSTION START TDE: 15:32:23.6 ABOVE HCU FLOOR TMS MUM 304.9 R l

?I l

~

GAS TEMP JUST BELOW SOLID FLOOR IN 45' CHIMNEY (22.3' ELEVATION)

TEST S-15

//

i i

%s sc A Le-

I 315,6 l

A Soo 4

a i

OO too k i

14 0

Q

(

v FLAMES ON P0OL 3oo R

}

,.l l

l k

C u.g

..... P' Y

' ~ '

TIME (SEC ) ->

EPRI S-14 CASE B ETH IELW TifESH(LD TAR.10 PJ PCT M - SPRA TEST MTE: 3-SEP-95 STARTTM: 14:16:23.3 T2H NDetM 41.3 ECC 12H HAXDtM 341.2NGC l

GAS TEMP AT 1/4 RADIUS, 45* CHIMNEY AT HCU FLOOR LEVEL TEST S-14 (WITH SPRAYS)

If

l i

2hirv s

315.6 6C*

l i

/\\

r=

}*

l i

n I

O Q

foo hj Q

t LOCALIZED COMBUSTION g

j g

FLAMES ON P00L AB0VE HCU FLOOR 5*

l G

{

i

.m...&. w m ihaLl,.

p r

loo i

TIME (SEC ) -->

H E9 G.D TAII. TO 75 PCT M - SPRA LOCALIZED COMBUSTION g g g, p.16' E.3 ABOVE HCU FLOOR g gg g g,g g j

i i

l i

i GAS TEMP AT 1/4 RADIUS, 37.5* AZIMUTH, I

16.6' ELEVATION TEST S-14 (WITH SPRAYS) lh

1 i

~

~

2b' MIN 8

315.6

/\\

5*

a O

O

ao i

hl Q

k v

j

_w o O

LOCALIZED COMBUSTION FLAMES ON POOL AB0VE HCU FLOOR f

f

)-

m s i.a i n

~

p ppy

=+-

a%!"

l l

8

~

ar.

Joo TIME (SEC ) ->

TE E N M M - M LOCALIZED COMBUSTION START TDE: 14:16:23.3 ABOVE HCU FLOOR T414 MAXDtM 287.4 ECC

's, ;

(

I GAS TEMP JUST BELOW SOLID FLOOR IN 45' CHIMNEY (22.3' ELEVATION)

TEST S-14 (WITH SPRAYS) l7 l

l CONCLUSIONS i

TESTS S-14/15 i

t l

1 l-

.l o

Hydrogen Ignition Systems are very effective in limiting i

hydrogen accumulation in containment i

i i

o' Data are now available to confirm the conservatism of l

CLASIX-3 predictions

)

l

- Effects of sprays and oxygen concentration are adequately addressed l

i If/

SCOPING TEST S.16 - BASES o Test S.16 was conducted due to analyses which indicated that peak gas temperature may occur inboard of 1/4 radius.

f The subject analyses involved:

~

t l

- Evaluation of plume correlations in heat loss report t

i I

- Evaluation of gas velocity vs. temperature correlations i

1 o Test S.16 was also required to resolve uncertainty in I

defining magnitude of peak temperature because no analysis provided a definitive indication of temperature gradient inboard of 1/4 radius

/

l?

L._,._....__

e s

I I.

f SCOPING TEST S.16 - TEST CONFIGURATION i

i l

o Test S.16 test objective:

.to quantify temperature j

gradient between 1/4 radius and drywell wall i

i o

Geometry:

Same geometry used as in other scoping tests Blockage installed i

l Grating removed from immediately above Suppression l

Pool surface 4

1 8 ADS Plus SORV at 330 degree azimuth Enhanced instrumentation coverage in 315 chimney I

o Injection History l

i l

Base Case A' (150 GPM) hydrogen release history plus l

j a 0.14 lbm/sec tail (approx 5 mins) i Constant flow of steam o

Other Containment sprays not actuated Suppression pool temperature a' 65 degrees 20

t i

FACILITY INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT PRIOR TO S.16 (ELEVATION 11.2')

LEGEND Disconnected T/C O

T/C Vert Veloc Probe e

f

,O w20s N

U.

re,3 l

gg,43 M

2.5' stese T2Og ' rf w 2oi m.s

~

T288 Teo 2

/*

, ' ' ' ~ G g' g'A31 Me, 'g*'y 45 53,3 9

wm

,,, /

g.s' W292 i

2ec*

~

G" T2o7 T295 *e 2

90 l

h,, e*

N %

__ f.,

I i

f, I

m

+

A.

J T258

/

~..

l Tf f t *- T248

.s T260 k'

\\

n7.r

• g,.

. g ' S - s l e. ).

~

e 6

us..

22r*

g 14r'a *

,.T259 ggo

'To

• o Iot.T *,y.

IS?..t*

• gj l

g 141.:* ire

• IFr.:*

I

^

Manri L..

r --.

INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT FOR 315 CHIMNEY IN TEST S.16 (ELEVATION 11.2')

LEGEND

~'

Previous themocouple e-x New themocouple psens 4-- STEAM f

TUNNEL WALL 3, s o

/'

9

.p.P 1

3

/

T29L

/

nz, i

l

\\

nds M7 i

m 0.31S'

.'\\

U 7 77

\\---

i 6/

m3 333 1 j

D2 4

l 775/

l 72p. f 322.l*

7 3ZG.3

• 322.5

• 318.2*

DRYWELL WALL l

8N d

0 0

0-O *s

{

r s

2. 2.

1 i

i SCOPING TEST _ S.16 - TEST RESULTS l

(315" Chimney) i 1

o Peak gas temperatures occur between the drywell wall and the 1/4 radius (a 1/8 radius)

I i

i 1

3 i

o Peak average gas temperatures at 1/8 radius are approx 100 to 180 F higher in S.16 than peak average temperatures j

measured for thermocouples at 1/4 radius l

l 8

Gas temperatures decrease between 1/8 radius and drywell o

i wall i

1 4

I Objective of test was to assess measured temperature o

gradient.

Due to following, comparison of S.16 to other test data is limited:

~

No grating installed Blockage installed Suppression pool not heated prior to test

[(

L3 a-

I

, ~.,

N O

• g FRACTIO N OF DISTANctr Plao M DR-f uJ Elt.

ta A t.L To o u T Gil. u) Ai L T P 7 'A 4

4 g.

7762

. TJf, f 7771 I.

i 4

sto-

[-

Tr(n

'T2G'! ( 02 #' 3 ;

TES T S-flo g{

b.

RAoin t A Tresa un no ni of

[ '

T0*

. T8s *l.

ruc.(32 2 b ] Pe79k 1 % GAS Te*M P 9

92-

f.,

T853

[;;.

r Q

Tvri Ea 5-b) 300 -

b e

J.

u

~

n L.

t F.

0 1

.g n ss- ( 3 e e 8 ')

{

T 200 -

1.

N

~

I t

r fog.

I 6

5 io

/r zo 15 3o 35 l~

!s zn!CHES

/~Ron! DR NELL WALL h

Y i

i I

SCOPING TEST S.16 - TEST DATA l

GAS TEMPERATURES IN 315 CHIMNEY Nominal Locations l

Thermocouple Azimuth ($1 Radius Peak Avg ($F1 Elevation I

T284 316 1/4 180 11.2' l

T285 318.8 1/4' 230 11.2' l

T851 318.8 3/16 350 11.2' T852 318.8 1/8 410 11.2' l

l T853 318.8 1/16 400 11.2' f

a l

T286 322.5 1/4 415 11.2' i

T361 322.5 3/16 550 11.2' T862 322.5 1/8 550 11.2' T863 322.5 1/16 450 11.2' i

l T287 326.3 1/4 485 11.2' i

T871 326.3 3/16 550 11.2' l

T872 326.3 1/8 585 11.2' T873 326.3 1/16 500 11.2' b

l l

T292 330 1/2 350 11.2' l

T921 333.8 3/8 480 11.2'

.T922 330 1/4 580 11.2'

]

T923 328.1 1/8 510 11.2' i

j T181 303.75 1/4 200 10' i

T182 307.5 1/4 200 10' T183 310 1/4 200 10' l

T184 315 1/4 220 10' T185 318 1/4 300 10' T186 322.5 1/4 495 10' T187 326.25 1/4 580 10' I

i l

13'

c.

i.

~

~

l I

SCOPING TEST S.16 - EFFECT ON SCOPING i

TEST PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS l

o Overall Trends l

i Measurements of higher temperatures at 1/8 radius do not alter temperatures outboard of 1/4 radius i

I l

o Data Repeatability-Highest temperatures at 1/4 radius have shown greatest repeatability to date l

Instrumentation at 1/4 radius would have detected any l

variations in test data due to plume movement i

l t

No basis exists for expecting temperatures between drywell l

wall and 1/4 radius to be less repeatable than temperatures recorded at and outboard of 1/4 radius l

f HCOG concludes thab higher temperatures at 1/8 radius do not affect previous conclusions on repeatability of test data l

l l

i O

Concurrent Steam and Hydrogen Flow i

l Test completed with high steam flow (s.05.3) confirmed l

l that steam is condensed in suppression pool and does not i

significantly affect thermal environment j

Instrumentation present in S.05.3 scoping test was j

adequate to identify any effect due to steam addition HCOG concludes that higher temperatures do not alter earlier conclusion that injecting steam has no effect on thermal environment 24

___m__.__.2m_

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

_,e_- - - _.,,-mw-e,_gu,.,,m,,,,

._y,

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

y -

v3

SCOPING TEST S.16 - EFFECT ON SCOPING TEST PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS (CONT'D) o Grating i

j

- Test S.07 demonstrated an effect from inclusion of grating section above a sparger

- Test S.12 demonstrated a significant cooling effect from j

inclusion of grating To ensure conservatism, grating above the pool surface i

will not be present in production tests

l 1

I o LOCA Vents i

i

- Production tests are currently included in matrix to define the thermal environment which results from hydrogen injection via SRVs and LOCA vents Higher temperatures in 1/8 radius do not affect the commitment to complete these tests 17 i

f

r t

SCOPING TEST S.16 - EFFECT ON i

l PRODUCTION TEST PROGRAM o

Temperatures inboard of 1/4 radius will be measured to provide a basis for analyzing equipment in this region Requires an extensive modification to the 1/4 scale test facility instrumentation plan O

Data Application Philosophy Measure temperatures at 1/8 radius to establish circumferential attenuation of peak temperature fields l

Modified instrumentation plan will define the radial and vertical temperature attenuation in the 315 degree chimney i

o Production tests are expected to begin by early January l

f SCOPING TEST S.17 - GOALS AND BASES i

o Test S.12 identified a significant cooling effect from large amounts of grating above the suppression pool surface l

i Due to:

a) large quantity of grating present in some plants; and b) wetting ~of grating due to splash from suppression pool during hydrogen injection t

i o

No detailed basis to establish actual effect of including i

grating No tests directly comparable to S.12 7

i New instrument plan will preclude comparisons with production test results t

i o

Test S.17 will provide basis for establishing the effect I

of large amounts of grating near the suppression pool i

surface

{

l l

1 i

I l

l t

I I.

SCOPtNG TEST MATRtx RCL' STCAM HgSTCAM SPRAYS /

TrstPb.

rsT.

Hist.

Et.. Loc.

Coctres Dr.aAP r.s S.01, 02. 03 A

NONC 8 ADS + 330 Orr Ncw coNsioCRCo sHAxCocws S.04 STCroo*4 Lcw ConsT.

8 ADS THRCswato TCsr S.05 A

A 8 ADS + 330 TCsis w TH coNcVRRCNT sTCAM S.05.1 A

A 8 ADS + 330 S.05.2 A

A 8 E + 330 S.05.3 A

HiGH CoNsT.

8 ADS + 330 INCREAsto sTCAM FLCw (FACTOR or 2-3)

S.06 A

Lcw CoNsT.

8 A05 + LCCA TCsis wlTH LOCA vtNTs S.06.1 A.

Lcw CossT.

8 ADS + LOCA S.06.2 A

Lcw CoNsT.

8 E + LOCA V

S.07 A

Lcw CoNsT.

8 AOS + LOCA CRATING A8CNC Pool IN 315 cHimCY S.07.1 A

Lcw CoNsT.

8 ACS, LCCA e

t 5.08 8 +.07

.Lcw CoNsT.

8 ADS + 330 F

TAIL,8Clow THRCsHoLo S.09 A*+.07 Lcw CoNsT.

8 AOS ON PCR EP TAst jus'T aCLcw THRCssoLo -

To 75% M t

S.10 B +.07 Lcw CoNsT.

8 ADS Cfr Tall attcw THRCswato i

S.11 A*+.14 Lcw CONsT.

8 AOS + 45 ON PCR EP Tall A8ovC THttsHoLo

[

TO 75% M I

I S.12 C'

Lcw CoNsT.

8 AOS + 45 04 PCR EP Assess RCPCATASILITY wlTH SPRAYS AND ALL BloCKAGCs INsTALLCo S.12.1 C'

Lcw ConsT.

8 ADS + 45 S.12.2 C'

Lcw CoNsT.

8 ADS + 45 o

I 1

S.13 8 +.14 Low CoNsT.

7 AOS + 115 Orr OsvisioN 1 PLus 5 oTHCa iGN TCas i

+ 3M sCcunCo t

S.14 0

Lcw CoNst.

8 A05 + 45 ON PCR EP OATA rom CvAtuATING coNstRvATism or QASIX-3 f

S.15 0

Lcw CoNst.

8 ADS + 45

'&r DATA ron EVALUATING coNsCavATism or Q.ASIX-3 5.16 A' +.14 Lcw CCNST.

8 A05 + 315

&r TAIL LoNG CNouGH TO ALLCw

'(

TCMPERATURCs T0 sTA81LizC. NoN=

5 HEATCo suPPRCssioN POOL.

l S.17 A' +.14 Lcw CONsT.

8 ADS + 45 04 eCR EP AssCss CrrCc7 or GRATING

'HYoRoGEN RCLCAst HisToRICs As FotLcus:

A 300 CR4 RCrLoco As Doctr<NTCo IN LETTCn @-03104TCo Mancs 13. 1985 t3 - 5000 CR4 RCrtoco As oocurcNTCo IN LETTER KN-031 oATCo MAncH 11. 1985 A' - 150 GFN nCrtooo As oocuMCNTCo IN LETTER KN-018 oATCo JutY 6.1984 C' - 150 GR1 RCrLoco As occitNTCO IN LCTTCn KN-052 oATCo August 1.1985 D - RCLEAst history B wlTH sV8stoVCNT HYoRoGCN RCLCAsC ADJusTCo To RCMAIN Just SELCw THC THRCsHoLo roR t

otrrusicre rLANCs ExcCPT roR PCRioO WCN HYoRoGCN RCLCAsC is HELo AT.14 LBM/ SCC TO RCouCC OXYGEN

[

coNcCNTRATioN l

0

o

_Po_ couc t ics Te s t *Tels I2) 7 'CL (I)

R STCaM Senavs/

Ccuricunatics H

H st.

_t. t ee.

c m_res 5,w1_aTre Test Pc.

P.01 C'

8A05 4 De PCa EPG PCney P.02 8 A05 240 P.03 8 ACS 330 8 A05 LD P.04 7

E3)

P.05 8

8 AOS. SCRV P.06 C'

8 A05. A0 07 P.07 8 A05 4*P'MO 8AOS.LO P

P.08 y

3r G.01 C'

8 AOS e 30 De PCa EPG CaANO QA.r G.02 8 AOS 120 8 AOS. 315 G.03 C.04 8A05.LO I3)

'/

G.05 8 ACS. SON G.06 C'

8 A05 + 30 GT C.07 8 A05 315

'I G.08 e

8 ADS LCCA C.01 C'

7 A05 + 30 Os PCs DC CLiNTcw C.32 7 ADS.120 C.C3 7 A05 325 C.04 o

7 A05. LOCA I3I C.05 6

7 AOS. SON C 06 C'

7 A05 30 GT C.07 7 ACS. 325 7A05.LD

't C.08 q

R.01 C'

7 A05 225 CN RivCe BCN0 R.02 7 A05 320 R.03 7 ADS. 30 R.04 7 A05. LCCA I3) if 3r

.l.05 B

7 ADS. SON TOTES:

(1) C* Ano B As 00CLKNTCO IN LCTTCn KN 052 oATCO Aucusf 1.1985. T4sC RCLCASC MISTORICS WERC oCrlNCO FOR GRaNo QA.r.

T 4 ConnesPONo:No aCLCAsC NISTORICS FOR TMC OTMCR PLANTS wtLL SC OCRivCD SY PLA.TIPLYING f*CSC l

MISTORICS et TMC 70LLchstNG mAtl0; te. or rtrt stM_ fs IN OTHf R plant CfWDf Po. or rm stroLCs IN GnAuO Qa.r's Conc (2) ACTUAL N PLANT sPAncCn LOCAT 0Ns soCNTiriCD IN TASLC. CLINTON A#e RevCa BCND PAODUCTICH TC5TS wlLL utsLIZC FActLITY SPAAGCR$ IN T4 *nsanon enacC*

LOCATION TO THAT NOTCO IN TASLC.

(3) 7MC SON wMICM PRODUCC5 TMC MOST LIMt TsNG tocM TW eMat C W ie:PM NT w e LL." * * * -

J/

. ~,

l PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENTATION PLAN -

11/19/85 Facility Surf.

Sphere IIP Mult.

Mult.

I;*'

Elevation Gas T/Cs T/Cs Cal.

Guage Vel Conc.

95W 7.0' 3

3 0

2 0

0 8.0,8.5' 5

0 0

2 4

4 10.0' 26 0

0 4

5 5

11.2' 70 0

0 0

6 0

I 13.9' 3

0 0

2 3

0 16.6' 24 2

0 0

3 2

20.0' 2

0 0

0 0

1 28.4' 11 0

0 0

4 3

35,42' 3

0 0

0 0

3 Total 147 5

0 10 25 18 3

2 i

e 4

l I

4 p

Lege~cl G s s. W w oc.op L 3

thcl;~ek V

\\

l o 4 JL w 6.g e v

$dr J Acc. Mm odAJ[b Yhal):g n.xe d G* s Ca"C.

IB l

f Cea4,nu.ss & A.c G u c. D

$q mesp a. tat Vel ei4

/e r h'c d

/e le s.l J y @0 k y

PEE Y L9,your Elevcd ton 7.0 ft 345*

0 g

TV4 C -~~ ~ w an.ar 'pf>

\\

s

.em-m f

./

M

's N.-s

/

x

\\

x s

/

/

\\

o

/

15 T v.t.

rV i

I s

l

\\

c j

I o

O' t

l l.

l i

\\

x

'.9 s

___.,s'

/

\\,

13 5

• N..

[

~'

'.\\

Wf I

t ? o,,

g.- c

.. __.~

,I

=

r 7

I f

i

+

s p

B i

~

Fhecy. Layout Eleva. tion 6.0, P f 7

O l.

/,

9 9 t. Lr

~s,

--s 3

~

o.

1

- /

4

~

8.S E L

+

s l

\\

\\

i s

/

I T

1 l

0 90*

. T70" 30-

• O 2 i

k i

\\

i t

i I

i l

I i

i f

1,

{

=

\\

r i

f

?

r 6

I I

4 s

/

i l

t i

iso

• 6 3Y j

,ww c.

v.

w-w w,eg-wew.-e

--+--+,-*wew--

y+^*mww-

+---+nw-,-ww---gt-w c_ge--=

we e ve~gv--wv--=rw-g--*

-a-p-wva----rvg---gy w s g+--

<w-e y-*r p,.g-p y es,w re, wey-

4 O

D 2(o e

Y #

v2 1

2.

O I

8 4 eW D

1 Pe<#y Lo. od tc.o ++

etsunTiora C

& & bet.a E 'b ^3' d o

345*

is *

~'/

3aG,r.t'

/.,

/

30

./

/ 33"JJ*

/

,5 *

/

37 4

• /

SS

.y.

~ ~ ~ ~.

loL7F

.s

/-/., -

~ ~..

6 t,#

q

.~

3cc*

f.

f.~.

e

. d?'S' ' /

a 5-

.,7[sf..'

TlOY

. us.c,

'4 hNW a 3.;

,'O ~

.s.,

-f t ' ~- '

s, m

. ~...

..- s.

Il(,\\'.

. d'.

, gy ;]

~ ~ _ ~~sp..

l W.,.

.,. f., '

',....,.'*_e,~.

'I i

l

\\ m~

22S"*

i w.

i 3 )e

Jo e (-

Peny Lad ed--

Ete,ve'ioc3 1 [, g' 1

N,.

3. n~ *

./

uc,,

$,i an zc. ?

3e s

A 322.5

.,j s

- x.

43 3,,-

N J

s. V N. '. '

^-

~.

e

=e

/

s.

N

.r -.

2D f*

. ':,{,~ $.

o

.p

~*S:&$b?.;

,$k.h$l*&.?"

~ 2. -

.*:*~

3 5

~ ^ ' * *,

Ad. * *.

.., ' = =..,.. _

a

,,v &

~..

27o l 1

L i

O

-9 59._,. U'q#

l

(

.e. N.,

.\\

j._

f... _

l

./'**

\\

.t

'\\

./.

\\

s-r

'V.

~

N

\\.

\\.

I25 a

s s'

'a

\\

/.N.....-

e

\\

'X

\\,

' ar *

\\

t

\\R2.5

• iso

• l '/, '" '

36

3 03 f.,(edel H Ca.u.ecle) ~L.f e

Tec.tc (lo t.e.u.d s) c c

ei e,

Pe ay La.q ouA Elevab 13.94t c

. 19'.

ye "

32(oLt*

, \\,.

f S

f*

4

,s

[

,jl\\

'N-

'\\

\\

/

s, U 12.o # EL,

\\.

j s

e 170*-

9 f6 30

~

i

\\

l

\\

/

'\\.

/

/j

... ~.. ~.

O.

'N y

x w

40-37

• H T2

@.3

@ 2-Peyy L.#

em Ano a no. 4, n 6a iv. 2. 4+ T o

C--A S TC. ; JE L.

%/

324.2f

',5

,' ([37f*

coxtaw qs

=-

Sgg.

.e

/

AT L 7 ~2.,

- (y s-spi;.3;if N

L,.

s.

h,

• e,.

~

lL

=.

.?L g

/

a.

.I s

g t

f l

\\

\\

s i

2701 i

j l p*

w

-l i

\\

I Ii j.;'

/-C..e

,l

># # y

'h \\(

/

y'lis '

5;::

s g :e.,

yi

/,

..N

'y nue

.u ly,7

.*5 s15*

1 w:~/

,, ~f '

I.

14 5 *

/.

. % ~.

IW 3

a.

ml DI Lf La od CLent.a 7 0.oj n.3 h-C tis O

O I

J d'

'..I*.

• 1

1. eh'

%g, O

• • =.,

.,. c :#d.

' - o$

, ". 2\\:k

=. v...s=:,\\

t

,s' l

e.

f i

J i

\\.

I s

E i

f i

T9&o l

(at')

\\

N.s 1

\\

s j

l I

/

I i

.v..-

I 3,

/

I i80 i

l

.,u

,--_..-.-s..

,.g._-.,,_._--%_,

.r-...,u,,

,eq

--mg%.-,.

...-a....py

.-v..

-e

_w.#

p.-sp

_,..p7

• ll 93 39 btg lay oui 2.8',9 b ELEVATlDR) o O

.I y

-N f

. b.

7 3/s" \\

.1.

, U'

, 45 v

s-

~~~~** ~

_ $(

.l-*

4

w.,. -

.h

.., ~ *.k 4l

g.- -

[#ge f.,

g

, /.. ;, %.

f

._x d ~23.f l A, i

\\

f5 76 f.

I i

T5"E l

\\

)

270*4

/,

-90*

\\,

I I

- [%.hf 2.

\\

/

l

/

p.

a

. 'p.,

i ~'

l

~ ~ ~ ~

'N

'l35 22 i.

/.

N l

~

I lio" Q6 i

---y 4

6 3

83 Peu7 La.ad st,y,g go,,, 9, C.

e

,,_,...-d--..,

'N s 95 xs-N6(3o')

N

~s N

4 G

/

nc M iz' w '$

1

/

T6 newc-22-,

I-$oD em

"" Dotou

}

b

'/

s l

\\.

\\

l l

\\

\\

O l

Gu.7 a m *

\\

~.,

a r

.f

./

m-sW J

+

,, re, 13f

\\ w-y' 7......

Ito' 4'

HCOG SUBf1ITTALS TO NRC o

HCOG Submitted ~ program plan in December, 1984 4

o January-February meetings to review plan L

I i

i NRC agreed to support plan activities via timely review of submittals and participation in meetings f

I o

NRC has participated in numerous meetings i

i o

Significant submittals currently pending NRC review j

I

~

i I

l Ybi

[

4 4

HCOG LETTER:

HGN-037 Dated 7/29/85

SUBJECT:

Report Concerning Adequacy of 1/4 Scale Heat Sink Modeling 4

5 INFOR!!ATION TRANSMITTED:

i Heat loss report analyzing thermal responses of QSTF versus full scale Mark III containments STATUS:

o Received informal comments from the NRC staff i

o Currently revising Heat Loss report l

t o

Expect to meet with staff for discussions on revised l

report in mid-December o* Expect to resubmit finalized report I

i

l i

i i

e HCOG LETTER:

HGN-040 Dated 7/12/85 i

t I

L

SUBJECT:

Revision 3 of Program Plan

[

i INFORMATION TRANSHITTED:

t i

Revision 3 addressed:

[

r 1.

Comments from NRC's 4/2/85 letter

[

t I

t 2.

Decisions made in 5/22/85 NRC/HCOG meeting i

r t

3.

New hydrogen release histories accepted by i

6/24/85 NRC letter j

t t

i I

i l

I f

t t

l

4 e

O i

HCOG LETTER:

HGN-047 Dated 8/1/85 J

SUBJECT:

Initial 1/4 Scale Facility Test Conditions l

i INFORMATION TRANSMITTED:

f The following initial conditions to' tut used in the test facility prior to injecting hydrogen:

1)

Suppression Pool and Upper Pool assumed normal prior to accident i'

2)

HGE initiated by SORV or DWB equivalent in size to SORV l

3)

RPV depressurizes due to accident and operator then manually depressurizes through ADS valves I

i 4)

Suppression pool level corresponds to post upper pool dump level I

i I

5)

Upon spray actuation RHR takes suction from l

suppression pool at 150 F and cools to 125 F before i

l transferring water to spray header I

6).

Air in QSTF assumed to be isolated and heated by l.

increase in suppression pool temp.

e e

e HGOC LETTER:

HGN-049 Dated 8/28/85

SUBJECT:

1/4 Scale Test Facility Igniter Placement and Containment Thermocouple Temperature Response and Locations INFORMATION TRANSMITTED:

Responses to informal staff questions which provided:

1) Drawings showing locations of igni,ters in the 1/4 scale test facility

2) Justification that igniter locations in 1/4 scale test facility are appropriate for a Froude scaled facility

3) Verification that temperature response characteristics of thermocouples used to actuate containment sprays in the test facility are comparable to those used in actual plants l

l

^

4) Verification that locations of thermocouples used to actuate sprays in test facility correspond to actual plant configurations i

hbfC

l l

l HCOG LETTER:

HGN-055 Dated 9/27/85

SUBJECT:

Evaluation of SB0 and AWS contributions to HGEs INFORMATION TRANSMITTED:

i Qualitative discussion concerning AWS and SB0 events as initiators of HGEs which demonstrated that:

i

1) SB0 contribution is 4.5% of total core melt frequency l

2) AWS sequence does not contribute to containment failure from hydrogen combustion, therefore, not considered a plausible HGE 4

3) SB0 and AWS events need not be considered significant initiators of HGEs l

'l7

o e

e RECENT HCOG SUBMITTALS TO NRC HCOG LETTER:

HGN-058 DATED 10/31/85

SUBJECT:

Closure of Subtask 6.26 " Evaluate TVA Igniter Spray Tests".

HCOG LETTER:

'HGN-060 DATED 10/29/85

SUBJECT:

Submittal of Final' Scoping Test Matrix and Revised Production Test Matrix HCOG. LETTER:

HGN-061 DATED 10/31/85

SUBJECT:

Revision 4 of the Hydrogen Control Program Plan HCOG LETTER:

HGN-064 DATED 11/12/8b

SUBJECT:

Combustible Gas Control EPG HCOG LETTER:

HGN-066 DATED 11/14/85

SUBJECT:

Response to Questions from Staff in September 9 Telecon

~

HCOG LETTER:

HGN-068 DATED 11/14/85 i

I

SUBJECT:

HCOG Submittals to the NRC

..