ML20141G290

Summary of 860313 Meeting W/Mark III Containment Hydrogen Control Owners Group in Bethesda,Md Re Heat Loss Analysis. List of Attendees,Handout & Viewgraphs Encl

ML20141G290
Person / Time
Site:	Perry, Grand Gulf, River Bend, Clinton, 05000000
Issue date:	04/07/1986
From:	Kintner L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8604230347
Download: ML20141G290 (81)

Text

m

1. p %q#o UNITED STATES

~g 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a

n y

WASHING TON, D. C. 20$55

• s

/

APR ya 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 MARCH 13, 1986 MEETING WITH MARK III CONTAINMENT HYDROGEN CONTROL OWNERS GROUP (HCOG) REGARDING HEAT LOSS ANALYSIS The purpose of the meeting was to hear and. discuss the heat loss analysis for Mark III containment geometries including revisions to assumptions based on quarter scale test facility (QSTF) test results and application to a full scale Mark III plant. is a list of attendees. Enclosure 2 is a handout

. prepared by Factory Mutual Research Corporation, a contractor for HCOG.

HCOG presented a schedule for completion of the QSTF tests and analyses to determine pressures and temperatures in a Mark III containment during the burning of hydrogen generated from a postulated degraded core accident. The final test report is scheduled to be submitted December 15, 1986 and plant unique analyses are scheduled for January 2,1987. The equipment survivability report is scheduled to be submitted March 31, 1986 and the report on emergency procedure guidelines is scheduled to be submitted December 3, 1986. A number of inter-mediate milestones for meetings, submittal of draft reports and receipt of NRC staff coments were also presented.

Staff comented that submittals for review should be final to avoid, as much as possible, reviewing material more than once.

A review process similar to that used by the NRC for topical report reviews may be appropriate for HCOG reports.

HOCG presented slides giving the results of the Mark III containment heat loss analysis (Enclosure 2). Pages 3 to 15 of Enclosure 2 gives a sumary of the development of the heat loss analysis assumptions and methods up to the December 18, 1986 HCOG meeting (meeting sumary dated January 17,1986). Page 16 shows two of three revisions made to the analysis since the last meeting.

The third revision was to perform analyses over a wider range of hydrogen release histories.

Further details regarding these three revisions are given on Pages 17-19. Page 20 sumarizes cases analyzed using the revised heat loss model. Comparison of the model calculations with QSTF test results is shown on Pages 21-31. The conclusions of this study (Page 32) are that the model is reaconably accurate and predicts significant data trends. Comparison of model calculations for a full size Mark III plant with calculations for the QSTF is shown on Pages 33-47, and conclusions are given on Page 48.

Sensitivity studies 8604230347 860407

^

PDR ADOCK 05000416 J

P PDR J

r.

. are described on Pages 49-68 and conclusions are given on Page 69. Overall conclusions of the heat loss studies are given on Page 70.

Coments were made on particular slides (Enclosure 2) as follows:

Page 17 The value for the square root of (kfc) from the unit test was measured for a sample of insulation that had been soaked in water for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

The test method was the ASTM Test for thermal conductance. Tests were run at low temperature to avoid drying out the insulation.

Page 20 In response to a staff question regarding the wall effect in the QSTF, HCOG said the flow model, including modeling of the flame is accurate enough to adequai.ely predict full scale conditions.

Page 22 The hydrogen release rate shown on this and subsequent figures is the release rate during the time that combustion occurred in the test.

In other words, time zero is taken as the time combustion started in the test, not the time when hydrogen release was started.

Page 23 HCOG believes the delay in measured temperature rise compared to calculated temperature rise in this and subsequent figures is due to the thennocouples being wet. Air temperature traces for dry thermo-couples are characterized by larger fluctuations than those for wet thermocouples. An example of this is shown on Page 29 where the peak of the temperature trace is for a wet thermocouple and the tail is for a dry thermocouple. H0CG is considering means to evaporate moisture from thermocouples before stsrt of test - e.g. resistance heating of thermocouples.

Page 31 Times for full scale model are 1/2 of real time for comparison with QSTF.

Page 40 The NRC staff asked whether HCOG had considered the sensitivity of gas temperature and hydraulic control unit floor temperature to openings in the containment. HC0G believes that openings in the containment wall are such a low probability event that they need not be considered.

Page 69 With regard to scaling QSTF results to full scale calculations, HCOG w.ll use measured temperatures and increase gas velocities by a factor of two. Calculations are intended to be best estimate values.

Uncertainties have not been qualified.

The staff commented on two other aspects of HCOG work.

(1) Regarding HCOG letter HGN-073, " Justification for Manual Actuation of Mark III Hydrogen Ignition Systems" March 5, 1985, staff questioned why 10 minutes was selected as a time delay after a decrear,ing reactor water level reaches the top of the active fuel before turning on the fgniters.

It is noted that "sig-J e

-r v

e r..

.. nificant hydrogen production" is defined as release of enough hydrogen for the wetwell concentration to reach 4.5 volume percent.

In order to be consistent with tests, igniters should be turned on at a much lower hydrogen concentration and with a much shorter time delay. HG0G will take this comment into consideration.

(2) Regarding equipment survivability, staff questioned whether HCOG would consider environmental qualification test data described in NRC Information Notice 86-02, January 6, 1936 for Limitorque valve operators with magnesium rotors. Further description of the tests and recommended corrective actions are contained in the General Electric Service Information Letter (SIL) No. 425.

HCOG will take this comment into consideration, e

A L. L.

intner, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page C%

9 1

y_

n,.

ts

_c o

-Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

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 Ge:mral 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 Office of the Governor and Reynolds State of Mississippi 1200 17th Street, N.W.

Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Washington, D. C.

20036 Attorney General Mr. Ralph T. Lally Gartin Building Manager of Quality Assurance Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Middle South Services, Inc.

P.O. Box 61000 Mr. Jack McMillan, Director New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 Division of Solid Waste Management Mississippi Department of Natural Mr. Larry F. Dale, Director Resources Nuclear Licensing and Safety Bureau of Pollution Control Mississippi Power & Light Company Post Office Box 10385 '

P.O. Box 23054 Jackson, Mississippi 39209 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Alton B. Cobb, M.D.

Mr. R. W. Jackson, Project Engineer State Health Officer Bechtel Power Corporation State Board of Health 15740 Shady Grove Road P.O. Box 1700 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877-1454 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. Ross C. Butcher President Senior Resident Inspector Claiborne County Board of Sapervisors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Route 2, Box 399 i

Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Mr. Ted H. Cloninger Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Regional Administrator, Region II and Support U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mississippi Power & Light Company 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Post Office Box 23054 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. J. E. Cross Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Site Director Mississippi Power & Light Company P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Mr. C. R. Hutchinson GGNS General Manager Mississippi Power & Light Company Post Office Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150

p f :_of' c,c lir. Frank A. Spangenberg Clinton Power Station '

illinois Power Company.

Unit 1 cc:

Mr. Allen'Samelson, Esquire Jean Foy, Esquire 511 W. Nevada

' Assistant Attorney tieneral Urbara, Illir.ois 61601 Environrutal Centrol Division

Southern Region 500.Scuth Second Street Richard B. Hubbard.

t Sprir.9 field, Illinois 62706 Vice.Fr(sident Technical Associates

Mr. D. P. Hall 1723 Hamilton Ave. - Suite.I'

'Vice-President San Jose, CA 9512E L

Clinton Power Staticr.

P.-0. Box 678 l

Clinton,. Illinois. 61727 Mr. H.- R. Victo:

i-Manager-Huclear Station Engir;cerire Opt.

Clinton Power Station L-P. O. Box 678 l

Clir. ton, Illinois 61727 l

-Sheldon Zabel, Esquire Schiff, Hardin & Waite-l-

7200 Sears Tower-l 233 Wacker Drive L

Chic 3go,. Illinois 60606 Resident Inspector

.U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Comission RR 3,. Box 229 A f-Clinton, Illinois 61727 i

Mr. R. C. Heider Project Manager Sargent & Lundy Engineers l'

55' East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 6Q603

. Mr. L. Larson Project Hanager General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue, N/C 395 San Jose, California 95125 Regional Administrator, Region 111

,799 Roosevelt Ruad Glor Ellyn, Illinois 60137 i

c

-a Mr. William J.- Cahill, Jr. -

~ River Bend Nuclear Plan't Gulf States Utilities Company CC:

Ms. Linda B. Watkins/Itr. Stevr.r. Irving -

~ Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

Attorney at Law-Conner and L'etterhahn

~

355 Napoleon Street

- 1747 -Pennsylvania Aver et. ~ NV Baton Rouge, Louisiu.a 70602

-Washington, D.C.

20006 Mr. David Zalcudek Mr.~ William J. Reed, Jr.

Nuclear-Energy Division Director - Nuclear Licensino Louisiana Department of Gulf States ; utilities Company

- Enviror.n<ntal _ Quality-P. 0.. Box 2951 P. O. Box 14690 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898 Richard H. Troy, Jr., Esq.

Mr. J. David McHeill, 111

' Assistant Attorney General in Charge State of Louisiana Departr,.ent cf Justice William G. Davis. Esq.

Departmeat of Justice 234 Loyola Averve Attorney General's Office New Orleans, Lccisitna 70112 7434 Perkins Read Gaton Rouge, Louisiana 7LLLL Resident Ir.spector P. 0.' Box 1051 lSt. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 H. Anne Plettinger 3456 Villa Rose Drive Daten Rouge, touisiaria 70006

Gretchen R. Rothschild Louisianians for Safe Energy, Inc.

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

P. O. Box 23571 Baton' Rouge,' Loui;;iana 70093 Regicnal Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director fcr Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 10C0 Arlington, Texas 76011 j

t l {.'

i 1

h

.{-

y,, =

c I;r. Murray R. Edelman Perry Nuclear Power Plant The Cleveland Electric Units 1 and 2

Illuminating Comparc cc Jey Silberg, Esq.

Mr. Larry 0. Beck Shaw, Pittzen,1 Trchtridge The Clevelano Electric 1800 M Street. H. U.

Illuminating Company Washington, D. C.

20006 P. O. Eox 97 E-210 Perry, Chiu 44C81 Donald H. Hauser Esq.

The Cleveland Electric Mr. James H. Harris, Director, Illwinating Company Division of Power Generation P. G. Box 5000 Ohio Department of Industrial Relations Cleveland, Ohio 44101 2323 West 5th Avenue Post Office Box 825 Pesident Inspector.s Officc Columbus, Ohio 43216 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connissior.

Permly at Center Road Ferry, Chic A4081 Regional Administrator, Regico III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illir.cis 00137

' Donald T. Ezzone Esq.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 105 Main Street Lake County Administration Center Painesville, Ohio 44077 Ms. Sue Hiatt DCRE Interim Representative 8275 Hunson henter, Chic 44060 s

Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

618 H. Ihchigan Street Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio A3624 Jchn G. Cardinal, Esq.

Prosecuting Attorney Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047 i

I t

h- --

+

ATTENDEES Meeting with HCOG 3/13/86

.Name

.HCOG R.W. Houston

• Marvin Morris L.L. Kintner Emin Ortalan C.G. Tinkler Timothy A. Byam A. Notafrancesco John D. Richardson D. Yue Bob Evans Charles Ferrell Randy (Jr) Langley Hulbert'C. Li John Hosler Kris Parczewski Matthew Rager FrancoTamanini(Presentor)

E. Ural Michael J. Hanski Gary W. Smith 6

I

• Part time l

l l

l l

l

,---n.

- 3 HEAT LOSS ANALYSIS FOR MARK 111 CONTAINMENT GE0METRIES (POST TEST REVISION)

BY ERDEM URAL FRANCO TAMANINI FACTORY MUTUAL-RESEARCH CORP.

HC0G/NRC MEETING, MARCH 13, 1986 BETHESDA, MARYLAND l

l..

l i

i

. CONTENTS BACKGROUND OBJECTIVE TASK HISTORY APPROACH OVERVIEW i

CONTAINMENT MODEL DESCRIPTION (JULY SUBMITTAL)

GAS TEMP & VELOCITY COMPUTATION MODES OF HEAT TRANSFER To EAcH HEAT SINK HEAT SINK MODELING MODEL IMPROVEMENTS INCORPORATED SINCE JULY SUBMITTAL CASES EVALUATED USING REVISED METHODOLOGY RESULTS

SUMMARY

~

i i

i

BACKGROUND CONVECTIVE AND RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER MODES DO NOT FOLLOW FROUDE MODELING REQUIREMENTS EXACTLY (I.E. SQUARE ROOT VARIATION OF FLUXES WITH SCALE).

IN REDUCED SCALE EXPERIMENTS, HEAT TRANSFER BY

... CONVECTION IS GENERALLY HIGHER THAN NEEDED.

RADIATION IS HIGHER / LOWER FOR OPTICALLY THICK / THIN MEDIA.

THIS FACTOR ALONE WOULD LEAD TO GAS TEMPERATURES IN A REDUCED-SCALE MODEL WHICH ARE LOWER THAN CORRESPONDING TEMPERATURES AT FULL SCALE,_fF ALL HEAT SINKS ARE ACCURATELY MODELED IN THE EXPERIMENT.

EXPECTATION THAT ABSENCE OF HEAT SINK DUE TO EQUIPMENT IN 1/4-SCALE FACILITY WOULD OFFSET HIGHER HEAT TRANSFER.

NEED TO QUANTIFY EXTENT OF COMPENSATING EFF5 CTS.

O

OBJECTIVE DETERMINE, BY ANALYSIS, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GAS TEMPERATURES PRODUCED IN THE 1/4-SCALE FACILITY AND THOSE

~

EXPECTED IN MARK ll! UNITS.

ANALYSIS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ESTIMATE OF ABSOLUTE LOCAL TEMPERATURE LEVELS.

HOWEVER, THE GLOBAL PARAMETER VALUES CALCULATED FOR THE 1/4-SCALE FACILITY SHOULD BE APPRCXIMATELY EQUAL TO 1HO'SE MEASURED IN 1/4-SCALE TESTS.

I f

I 1

Y

~

c.

o HEAT LOSS ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT HISTORY MID 1984:

FMRC DEVELOPED A COMPUTER CODE FOR THE CONTAINMENT LOADS WORKING GROUP (CLWG) TO PREDICT THE THERMAL ENVIRONMENT IN FULL SCALE MARK Ill CONTAINMENTS DUE TO HYDROGEN DIFFUSION FLAMES.

THREE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH LABORATORIES (LANL, SNL, FMRC) OBTAINED COMPARABLE RESULTS.

EARLY 1985:

UTILIZING METHODOLOGY DEVELOPED FOR CLWG, FMRC PERFORMED CALCULATIONS FOR 1/4-SCALE TEST FACILITY l

AND A FULL SCALE MARK 111 PLANT FOR A SPECIFIC HYDROGEN RELEASE HISTORY TO BE TESTED.

l l

l MID 1985:

1/4-SCALE TESTS REVEALED THAT BACKGROUND i

TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE INCREASE BY AN AMOUNT l

APPROXIMATELY 1/2 0F WHAT WAS CALCULATED, l

INDICATING INSUFFICIENT ACCOUNT OF HEAT LOSSES IN THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL.

LATE 1935:

FMRC EFFORT FOR MORE REALISTIC MODELING OF HEAT LOSSES.

i l

i

~

i l

ANALYTICAL APPROACH ZONE MODELING OF DOMINANT COMPONENTS OF CONTAINMENT FLOW.

6L0 SAL CONSERVATION OF MASS / ENERGY FOR SELECTED SUBSYSTEMS:

FLAMES, PLUMES, INNER WALL, OUTER WALL, EQUIPMENT, BACKGROUND GAS, ETC.

HEAT EXCHANGE RATES CALCULATED FROM AVAILABLE HEAT TRANSFER t

CORRELATIONS.

OVERALL APPROACH UNCHANGED IN REVISED METHODOLOGY.

9 9

D i

1 i

O g

9 4

4 Tow

/ee e/

/

I.IW Toq N

k\\\\%3'/

PLUME

==:-:- Sgx 'Nhh

^-

\\ :::::-:::

7

~

~

REVIEW 0F MODELING APPROACH DOCUMENTED IN JULY SUBMITTAL GAS TEMPERATURE / VELOCITY COMPUTATION FLAME / PLUME IEMPERATURES/ VELOCITY BASED ON PREVIOUS MEASUREMENTS OF TEMPERATURE / VELOCITY DISTRIBUTIONS IN HYDROCARBON AXISYMMETRIC FREE PLUMES.

CONVECTIVE HEAT LOSS TO INNER WALL CALCULATED FROM FREE PLUME DATA FOR LOCAL VELOCITIES / TEMPERATURES, IN TURN USED AS INPUT TO FORCED HEAT TRANSFER. CORRELATIONS.

t BACKGROUND GAS TEMPERATURE CALCULATED BY MASS AND ENERGY BALANCES FOR PRESCRIBED ADDITION AND CAECULATED LOSSES.

CONVECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER BASED ON NATURAL CONVECTION.

P

?

MODEL OF JULY SUBMITTAL HEAT LOSS EXCHANGE PATHS Fnom FLAMES FNom PtumEs Fnom BACKGROUND GAS TO OUTER WALL RADIATION NONE RADIATION CONVECTION (NATURAL)

CONDENSATION TO INNER WALL RAD!ATION CONVECTION RADIATION (FORCED)

CONVECTION ( N ATilR AL )

TO EQUIPMENT NONE CONVECTION RADIATION (FORCED)

CONVECTION (NATURAL)

TO SUPPRESSION NONE NONE NONE POOL W

r i

1

MODEL OF JULY SUBMITTAL HEAT SINK MODELING INNER WALL / FLOORS SEMI-!NFINITE SOLID (DRY SURFACE)

OUTER WALL 1/4 SCALE SEMI-INFINITE SOLID (INITIALLY DRY SURFACE)

MARK III UNIT SEMI-INFINITE COMPOSITE (INITIALLY DRY SURFACE)

(LINER ON CONCRETE)

EQUIPMENT / GRATING ETC.

DISTRIBUTED UNIFORMLY IN ANNULUS ABOVE HCU FLOOR AND IN UPPER DOME THERMALLY THIN

/o

n'..

KEY MODEL CHANGES BETWEEN JULY SUBMITTAL AND DECEMBER PRESENTATION

• NEW FLAME / PLUME MODEL 2-D WALL PLUME CORRELATIONS WITH A CONSTANT WIDTH EQUAL TO SPARGER DIAMETER (OLD MODEL: FREE PLUMES WITH WIDTH A FUNCTION OF HEIGHT).

CONVECTIVE FLAME HEAT FLUX TO INNER WALL 2 5 TO 3 W/CM2 IMPOSED ON A RECTANGLE DEFINED BY SPARGER DIAMETER AND THE FLAME HEIGHTS (OLD MODEL: NODIRECTCONVECTIVEHEATTRANSFkR TO INNER WALL).

FLAME HEAT LOSS TO SUPPRESSION POOL (OLD MODEL: NO LOSS TO POOL).

• MIXED CONVECTION TO EQUIPMENT AVERAGE BACKGROUND GAS VELOCITIES UP TO 4 FT/S INDUCED BY THE PLUMES (OLD MODEL: QUIESCENT ENVIRONMENT).

MIXED (COMBINED) CONVECTION CORRELATIONS HAVE BEEN USED FOR BACKGROUND HEAT LOSS TO EQUIPMENT (OLD MODEL: NATURAL CONVECTION HEAT TRANSFER).

l l

//

~

f FREE PL UME

.3,......_......._..3..

>r

.i....

l

. 979 i

1.- - :

2l

.r i

.4

. ::..- <._:.n:

.r-

.:i..

.u.. :..; : :.3.... -

l l..

gn::.2

.u

'IN1.@5

-l -[ \\

~

.3 - -

i l/

\\..;in n, g l

Q

' ~

f,,

,;.} " h if:.-

gj -

-j j

/i 1

l,j

- ~ y\\ ~. l

---

i-j i

- \\.

i

?

.\\

4

\\

Q i

U s

.. \\

s T

{

j 4

]

14, g.

i 1

l W

o

.7.2 i

g a

Dem:.-

O l0

[

o 4.

K

\\

._ Is o.vs_.s. _e..m s, O

FOR ISS NW f:l,UME w

.I

k. g 1,

I I

7 O

b,

.. _ _ _._ q. _

>6 4

i l

i y

IQ i

f t _ _ _

j I

e

! ],. __

i.._.'

. _..h.

/I i

E i

___..t..

TbNL _S y.RF_d C F i

I AT 5,'] 5 W %..

l i

i f

i 0

O L

2 3

5 I

% P A 8t & E R I

RM6fAl Ol5TA4 cc fro M t rJN 5 R w/l L L Corr) 1-.

Outer Wall Top of the Drywell j

hg

~

1. t 4

I 4

I 4

Velocity n

4 ond -

I

)

.f Te mperature ""

Profile:

Plume /

HCU Floor

~ ' '

inner Wall Flame Suppression Pool I3

KEY MODEL CHANGES BETWEEN JULY SUBMITTAL AND DECEMBER PRESENTATION

• EQUIPMENT CHARfCTERISTIC SIZE FOR BACKGROUND LOSSES OLD VALUES.: 1 FT F/S, 5-3/4 IN. 1/4 SCALE (3 IN., 3/4 IN. RESPECTIVELY FOR PLUME LOSSES)

NEW VALUES: 3 IN. F/S, 3/4 IN. 1/4 SCALE ARE MORE REASONABLE (SAME VALUES FOR PLUME LOSSES)

• BACKGROUND RADIATION IMPROVED TO ALLOW EXCHANGE AMONG GAS AND THREE SURFACES MODELED (OLD MODEL: SURFACE EMISSION AT OUTER WALL TEMPERATURE, WALL EMISSIVITY EQUAL TO THAT CALCULATED FOR BACKGROUND GAS).

l

• CONDENSATION / EVAPORATION CONDENSATION ON ALL THREE SURFACES IS ALLOWED.

EVAPORATION FROM ALL THREE SURFACES ALLOWED UNDER FAVORABLE CONDITIONS, I.E. HIGH SURFACE TEMPERATURE AND LOW BACKGROUND STEAM CONCENTRATION.

OLD MODEL: CONDENSATION ON OUTER WALL ONLY.

NO EVAPORATION.

'H2 RELEASE HISTORY CHANGE TO REFLECT THE OBSERVED COMBUSTION PORTION OF TESTS (OLD MODEL: DIFFUSION FLAMES EXIST FOR HYDROGEN INJECTION RATES > 0 4 LBS/SEC F/S).

• 1/4-SCALE FACILITY PRESSURIZATION CAMERA PURGES CAUSE AIR ADDITION TO THE TEST VOLUME AT THE RATE OF 0 013 KG/S CORRESPONDING TO 0 015 PSI /WWhef'N Iyt

KEY MODEL CHANGES BETWEEN JULY SUBMITTAL AND DECEMBER PRESENTATION HEAT. LOSS EXCHANGE PATHS ff0M FLAMES FROM PLUMES FROM EACKGROUND Gas To OUTER WALL RADIATION NONE RADIATION CONVECTION (NATURAL)

CONDENSATION / EVAPORATION TO INNER WALL RADIATION CONVECTION RADIATION CONVECTION (FORCED)

'.ONVECTION (NATURAL) 20NDENSATf0N/ EVAPORATION TO EQUIPMENT NONE CONVECTION hADIATION (FORCED)

CONVECTION b XED1 CONDENSATION / EVAPORATION TO SUPPRESSION CONVECTION NONE NONE POOL j

i NOTE:

UNDERLINED ITCMS REPRESENT CHANGES FROM JULY SUBMITTAL.

HEAT SINK MODELING ALL SURFACES ASSUMED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT WATER TO ALLOW FOR EVAPORATION REwu!REMENT.

FILM THICKNESS NEGLECTED IN HEAT CONDUCTION CALCULATION.

(OLD MODElf DRY SURFACES.)

-W IC

• 'g 4.g MODEL IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN DECEMBER PRESENTATION EVALUATION OF 1/lf-SCALE FACILITY KfC USING BENCH TEST INTRODUCE A BOUND ON THE FRACTIONAL FLAME HEAT LOSS TO SUPPRESSION POOL AT LOW FLOW TAIL 9

0 I

(

i

/6

KEY MODEL CHANGES SINCE DECEMBER PRESENTATION

• 1/4 SCALE FACILITY SPECIFIC MODELING CHANGES INSULATION THERMAL CHARACTERIZATION btu /FT sg /2 =F NOMINAL VALUE 2

1 fiiTC

= 2 11

= 2 67 btu /FT gg /2 F DRY IEST 2

1 2

1

= 4 72 btu /FT ng /2 F WET TEST IHE LAST VALUE WAS USED AS BEST ESTIMATE l

l7 f

• 0; O e MODELING 0F POOL HEAT LOSSES

• ASSUMPTION OF:

1 EXCHANGE AREA EQUAL TO D2 (WHERE D IS SPARGER DIAMETER).

2 HEAT FLUX TO POOL (PER UNIT SURFACE) EQUAL TO HEAT FLUX FROM FLAME TO INNER WALL (APPROXIMATELY CONSTANT WITH HYDROGEN FLOW AND SCALE) AT HIGHER RELEASE RATES.

3 AS THE HYDROGEN RELEASE % ATE DECREASES THE FRACTION OF THE COMBUSTION ENERGY LOST TO THE SUPPRESSION POOL IS NOT ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE SELECTED THRESHOLD * (25% OF THE COMBUSTION ENERGY BASED ON THE LOW HEATING VALUE).

j l

i i

• CHANGE SINCE DECEMBER PRESENTATION l

\\

l

/ eV i-r -

<i, '...

e CASES CONSIDERED USING REVISED MODEL MODEL VALIDATION FOR 1/4 SCALE FACILITY FOR THREE TYPES OF RELEASE HISTORIES (A, B & C) COMPARISONS WITH TESTS S-05 1, S-08, AND P-07 MARK III UNIT WITH CONCRETE CONTAINMENT:

EXAMINE THE EFFECTS OF ACTilAL EQUIPMENT LOADINGS ON

- CONSERVATISM OF ER0 TIDE SCALING SENSITIVITY STUDIES EXAMINE THE EFFECT OF KEY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

• EFFECT OF KOC

• EFFECT OF BACKGROUND VELOCITY

• EFFECT OF PLilME WIDTH

/f

s 9

Tahle 4-1 Stpt4ARY OF THE CASES CONil0EREO F/S Ignition Time Case Name H Release R

e 1/4 Scale Grand Gulf 2

2 Pressure (psla)

Temperature ("F) 5 team Vol U't)

Remark s OA GA A (RWR0134)(2,3) 460 11.7 los 6

Comparison with Test S-05.1 04K A (RWR013A)(2.3) 460 17.1 108 6

Insulatlon Dry kpc OAV GAv A (BWR013A)(2.3) 460 11.1 108 6

Area open fraction Cg=1 OAP GAP A (RWR013A)(2,3) 460 17.7 108 6

Plumes covering entire drywell wall OR GR 4 (HCOGF5000)(2) 1040 17.7 108 6

ORT 4 (Received 6/12/A5)(4,5).

1350 18.7 til 6

Cog arlson with Test S-04 OC GC C (HCOG H150)(2,3) 610 16.8 82 3

Cog arison with Test P-07 M

(1)

Rest of the elature is assumed to be air (2)

Scaled for Perry Core (3) 0.15 ths/sec F/S tall appended (4) 0.066 aba/sec F/S tall appended (5)

Spike adjusted to experimental value 4

D

.., o MODSL VALIDATION STUDIES

-. o ~ Objective: Validate model by comparing the calculated results with data from 1/4 scale facility 4

1 1

e i

4 l

l Zl

~

..,.g

...g

.,,i,..

1.1.-

~

1.O.-

r-

.o 'J L

n v

E

.e s

g'

.=

e

.7 H

E!

4

.a D

l w

<m

.5._

.4.-

a i

.3.-

w t

i 1

L

.2

.1 ag............................,..,,...:

0 200 400 000 000 1000 1200 1400 1800 1800 2000 FULL SCALE TIME (SECONDS)

HYDROGEN RELEASE HISTORY USED TO SIM1 ATE TEST S-05.1 o

f

e S

l 1

l I

s e

a a

g u

a a

a g

a e

a u

g IO B

. {

ec

.I l

1 MM in 8,

wwg

' l W h"~

w=4 I i i :

l 1 i 1;

g C

~

l i 0;3

-^

l i g :

(

Z

/

O o

5 g w) l tt

)

w v

i

(

nJ W

e-*

5 4

t--

t y

J CO t

s

@Z

, },

l W"

,..**.pM y

g t

g we.

r

~.

.'./, __L g sC

.at O

s"""E" p%.:n eas2" z.-<

v'..........-

O

~

>==4

=_______m__

1o am O

Y

...................................'y

( )"C a y.

1 g

-4

\\

U-i WZ 1

20 I

OLD t

=

=

o JM

-v E

E g

oM M

IC1.

JZ e on aanwa3am annoasse

< C3

-u z.3

s 22 TEST (Pim m

l.,

21 l

5

.i.

q 20 l

~

1 l

g 19 18

..a ia

.a R

1...

I a

a a

ia I

a a

a ia ia a

a I

a a

a a

a 0

200 400 000 800 1000 1200 1400 1800 1800 2000 TIME (SECONDS) e VALL PLUME CALCULATIONS REV E86 COMPARISON WITH S-05.1 DATA (NO TAIL) x

~

g j

.t.

i p

I.

e g

i.

W

. m

.=-

M

=

g p

i-

_ gW w

. w.~..............

...r.

........_- g a

a u

o a

a u

a a

a a

a w

a a

e (ui"/*9I) 31V8 3SV3138 N30080AH

~

25

(.

~

k

.e G

to

~

DD 8

mm ww M

~

i I

I i

. 8 ^)

i !

l

• u I :

- P cv c z

p, 8,

=

u.

j u) v g"

e-.

1.LJ x

(D c) j L1J

.i R

t.AJ N

m<

s s

t.n <

ZC p......

O,

,nm.T.T.5._r._r._r_..";."*t.". r.n.n.n.n..n.r.r.nz........

o

._J (.O

. E Df)I

~

-8&

< e -e U*

1 n.njZ 20 t

t t

D C.D O

J 6--e S

8 am Jfl.

e 930) 38n1YH3dM31 ONn080X3V8

d5

=O

g v

1 B-*

i B

M

~

~

b i

i d

k!E i

?

i i

N k

v I

SIl LAJ

~

g 2

>-4 9--

(O i

LAJ 8

LaJ i.

N p

m<

Q

• • • • ...****,./

>- s(D

• ..........a=

HS

- m.u n*.*...

<g g

gm uz

- J r.

O 'BB a

toz Eo Om

...==

._J -

m o

s N

N N

N N

w a

w a

O%<

JG (VISc0 3HASS38d

-.J z

<o "Be u i

27

i

.....................................H e

5 t

n

.m z._.es i

'?

i 5

.; g L,,..........s u

W i

1

=g l

e m

....... e*

M (3v :

v W

t...

r

• • ... n..

l R

2 8

.!.....................................m o

e a

w n

a e

a n

a d

A A

A A

A a

i

=

M"/"9D 31VH 3SV3T.iB N30080AH l

2. P

=.-

ggg

....,....,....,.........u.

u u

n n

TEST G615)

---

TEST G655) 4

.................. QC 200 4

1 8

1 k

.f O

I i

150 l

\\

us r 1"'""yo C OUN 58 f

j

\\

l a.

'C__"

~

e

!l 100 CO 50 0

g g

g g

g g

3

.I I

I E

I 0

750 1500 2250 3000 3750 4500 5250 0000 6750 7500 TIME (SECONDS) i e

WALL PLUME CALCULATIONS REV E86 e

COMPARISON WITH P-07 DATA

-.o

22........................,.......................

4 1

~

~

TEST F18B

.................. oc 21 3

>i

.i

!.1 m

~

i 2

i i

\\

\\

19 m,.

1 i

l 18 0

17 i

.i I

18 O

750 1500 2250 3000 3750 4500 5250 8000 8750 7500 i

i TIME (SECONDS)

WALL PLUME CALCULATIONS REV E86 s

l o

COMPARISON WITH P-97 DATA

l 1

w.=

.,2 8

i c

co 10 m

mg 8

a B

W i

aw N, b s

=g a-8

.. Es e

WW

=g

~~8 g ::

I :l!

l g

~

~^

ii Ii O

O m

u}

V m

E O

ew i

L1J x-6--

tJ) <

ZQ o

R_

-s

<1 m.

0u,r 2

u

,1.

w, x0 mm B

B R

R R

8 R

H E

s's

_>a.

U DE 38niv83a31 acou n3H e5 zu 3l

MODEL VALIDATION STUDY - RESULTS i

• COMPARISONS OF THE CALCULATED RESULTS WITH THE DATA FROM THREE DIFFERENT TESTS INDICATE THAT THE MODEL PROVIDES A REASONABLY ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THE HEAT LOSSES IN THE 1/4-SCALE FACILITY.

MODEL PREDICTS ALL SIGNIFICANT DATA TRENDS (CONTROLLING MECHANISMS ACCOUNTED BY THE MODEL).

e 1

4

'I SCALING STUDIES C0f1 PARIS 0NS BETWEEN GRAND GULF AND 1/4 SCALE CALCULATIONS l

• OBJECTIVE: DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GAS TEMPERATURES PRODUCED IN THE 1/4-SCALE FACILITY, AND THOSE EXPECTED IN MARK lli CONTAINMENTS.

• PLOTS OF RESULTS FOR FULL SCALE TIME, WITH TIME ZERO AT l

IGNITION.

b e

e i

l l

33

v as j

4

- QA

.................. g3 8

g 1

a i

m t

g I

}

1 1m.-

1 i.

irl n

I

(/)

Z i

C e.-e I

N j

d J

1

(,)

..... a I

" *, = _.

n n

s E

B R

R R

8 R

R s'

a 00 3Hniv83431 Sys 800B n3H

d 37

40 i

m l

M g

I QA - PEAK v

GA - PEAK w

30 K swa QA - TAIL d

M GA - TAIL w

a:

Q 20 W

f f

I 3

w i

l 2

10

~

i i

rs n.r5 Ilfk I

a 0

W L

O EO

-10 z

o l

P O

i I -20 1

E FRO BRO BCO CDO FRI PCI FCI BRI BCl CDI PCE BRE BCE CDE FCP GAS lw HEAT LOSS MECHANISMS s

., T.,

l LEGEND FOR THE BAR CHART FR0

= FLAME RADIATION TO OUTER WALL BR0

= BACKGROUND RADIATION TO OUTER WALL BC0

= BACKGROUND CONVECTION TO OUTER WALL CD0

= BACKGROUND CONDENSATION ON OUTER WALL FRI

= FLAME RADIATION TO INNER WALL PCI

= PLUME CONVECTION TO INNER WALL FCI

= FLAME CONVECTION TO INNER WALL BRI

= BACKGROUND RADIATION TO INNER WALL BCI

= BACKGROUND CONVECTION TO INNER WALL CDI

= BACKGROUND CONDENSATION ON INNER WALL PCE

= PLUME CONVECTION TO EQUIPMENT BRE

= BACKGROUND RADIATION TO EQUIPMENT BCE

= BACKGROUND CONVECTION TO EQUIPMENT CDE

= BACKGROUND CONDENSATION ON EQUIPMENT FCP

= FLAME CONVECTION TO SUPPRESSION POOL GAS

= CHANGE IN BACKGROUND GAS ENERGY OA

= 1/4-SCALE BASELINE CASE WITH A d! STORY GA

= FULL SCALE BASELINE CASE WITH A HISTORY PEAK = 255 SEC F/S TAIL = 6000 SEC F/S e

=

OBSERVATIONS ON THE ENERGY BUDGET i

t o

Plume convection to equipment and background convection to equipment are the terms mostly responsible for the observed lower background temperature at full scale than at 1/4 scale during the early portion of the transient During the tail, the higher heat losses through the o

outer wall calculated at 1/4 scale (wet wall thermal properties) are the reasons for the background temperature becoming higher at full scale than at 1/4

-scale o

Plume and flame ccnvection to the inner wall and flame convection to the pool are responsible for the lower HC0 floor temperatures predicted at 1/4 scale (Heat Transfer mechanisms are not Froude scaled) i i

e

g _... _

m

-m s.

p t

I e

,,1 w

B e

~

8 j

~~

r l

b

~

E@-

~

M wZ s

u-M

~

d, G3

~

o, g

A M

J J

J J

J d

LJ 03S/ITD 31VH 3SV3T38 2H *S*d YI

• 8

• 4

)

~

W W

W 5

1 5

5 5

g 5

1 5

5 g

5

• 5 V

l b

4 E

4 g.'

g..**

g

..8 O.g

'8..,

a

..g r,J tM v

G m

n E

i W

I lm LAJ I

i

~

h

~

1 83 i

C i

s i

j U

n Sg i

n E

E a

a, d<

u

._J GD 3801VH3dH31 SVD ON0080)OV8 d

=

Mb

S P

9.........

g i

e

~

l

......E

[

I g

.*..=%

$ hf

~

~

i 2

W i

=_

id3 L&,J

.~

i:

ti M Ee w

i

,J I

<.i R

55 l

1

.1 e

i 85 M

w<

i E

u.

a<

u wen

..................,i...............

S N

M N

N N

R 2

2 C,

d<g u

y (YISc0 3Hf!SS38d s'

Dr l

93

q: g

i.

f

!J B i

..i 4

I e

u Jp l

\\..

l m

m I

m W

g i

i i

- g L.L3 1

s i

m. ss i

w

\\

_.s i

=!

l m ::

i g

w.

i g

@v i

E.

sa i

cm

<m O-J L.a.

m i

i WO

~

IO

<M i.

i.

u i

wm it

,t

,i,t

.t

.t t

t l-t t

_.,1.L!

8 R

R H

E B

B R

R R

8 R

R a=

._, d m

J (d) 3801VB3dW31 SVD B0013 03H s

1 h

l L

1

\\

4 4

e p

s.,

O E'

+,

5

^~

y*"'ty, f

7

_PW e

.m

<3 h

j

$j*

4 5

W W

E

~-

5 m

o e

^

f w

a l

t a

~ ~

W g

s e

g 4

O 4

g

+

t

.../

f e

P g.

t e.

r-e i

O 4

i

$~aE' I

_ i -.

v C

i E k,, t.s I

W 1

i.

(J)

N

~

i LL.

I

~

1 1

L l

1 1

1 1

9 l

M 1

y 1

I 1

1 i

fe 1

1 t

1

...i A4 gge'

%]*e$.9 l

gg

"'~.

s e

O M

8 B

f.-

/

GD 2801V83dW31 SYS ONn0BSOY8 y

i sp

+-

e e

5 5

g 5

E 5

5 g

W W

W D

g 6

1 5

3 g

5 V

W 5

g 4

5 5

5

=

l t

9 88

'i f

f kU

=

i.

I i.

W L1 j

L&J a

h$8

~

l LAJ i

.J n.

l

\\

i l

l l

l' 82.....****,,.

A B

3 2

h a

R A

A l

R a

a a

I a

a A

A A

w M

M b

W N

m m

m e

1 l

3 I

I

=

3 1

f l

5 a

.)

I.

4

.I

{

m k

b 5 m@

~

i l

t.

Wu W

I.

I

-J 5

i 8

u.

W i

I i

l a

i i

a i

)

w 0

.**** A e

.ee l

3 l

g g

g t

I a

a a

a e

a a

s'

=

00 3511V83cM31 SYD 80073 03H

\\

l V7 l

SCALING STUDIES - RESULTS Pressure in 1/4 scale facility is generally higher than that of Grand Gulf The background gas temperature in the 1/4 scale facility is higher than that calculated for Grand Gulf, early in the history.

For later times, however, Grand Gulf temperature increases more rapidly with the temperature difference being as high as 10 degrees Fahreheit 1

The gas temperatures calculated at the BCD floor 4

elevation are up to 60 degrees Fahrenheit higher for Grand Gulf compared to the 1/4 scale facility during the higher hydrogen release rates.

This difference could be as high as 40 degrees at the end of the.15 Ibm /sec full scale tail J

' SENSITIVITY STUDIES

]

OBJECTIVE = EXAMINE THE EFFECT.0F KEY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS SENSITIVITY CASES CONSIDERED:

EFFECT.0F KgC

- DRY SAMPLE KpC FOR 1/4 SCALE

- - EFFECT OF BACKGROUND VELOCITY

- LOWER BACKGROUND VELOCITY 2 5 vS 6 5 FT/S'F/S AT THE PEAK 1 2 vS 3 1 FT/S F/S IN THE TAIL EFFECT OF PLUME WIDTH

- PLUMESfCOVERING THE ENTIRE CIRCUMFERENCE.

O O

i, SENSITIVITY TO K(x WET KfC 0A

=

1/4-SCALE FACILITY QAK = DRY K{C,(

/

I I

g;.,,

L W

W W

W g

y

\\

a

]p g

y y

y y

1

(

\\

g

\\

a5

\\

\\

lO t

h it! W

\\

N

\\

w I

Y g

\\

h 4

g 1

a U

A a

a a

'I i

^

m a

a E

R a

a M

O LO 35RVH3dG1 SVS ONn020Y8

d

=

I

/

/

?.

'/

22

. f.

/

/

l

\\

/

m

/

GAK

/

i I

V j

qa s

l j

1 1

k

[

~

b j

18 i

)

.1 l

1 l

37 0

15El SIXl 4500 0E0 7500 E00 10500 12000 13500 IIIB j

FULL SCALE TIE (SECONDS) i

{ v3 WALL PLUME CALCULATIONS REV - E86 Y

t

g-I l

a 3I I

l I

I I

g I

g gW r

g E$m E

I gE>

j g

g

~

1 a

.s LJ a

i a

i a

i a

1 8

i l

B B

R R

R 9

R R

R s'

a to 3auvam31 sys 2013 n3H

d i

r,-

Y-O e

S h

l I

l 5

W W

I l

W W

l 5

W g

5 W

W W

y y

800 QA om 700 o gm

=

500 r

op a

w O

e

@ 300 W

200 100 0

1500 3000 4500 8000 7500 0000 10500 12000 13500 15000 RA.L SCALE TIME (SECONDS) w WALL PLlME CALCULATIONS REV - E86

r,:

4 9

SENSITIVITY TO BACKGR0tlND GAS VELOCITY QA

- 1/4 SCALE NOMINAL CASES GA

= Futt SCALE QAV - 1/4-SCALE REDUCED BACKGR00MD gas VELottTY f

GAV = Fult SCALE i

i i

I t

r

-S T

0 l

4>

BACKGROUND GAS TEMPERATURE (F) l F

g f

E U

4 t

r.

c-)

s s

r-g

\\

~

,,i i

~A g

~

ly

~

p

',I J

6 l

m b

l

~

~

l

'/

~

~

/

\\

m 8 8 l/

/

m I

i 1 e

--4

~

Q h'

N I I

=

l /

t l

./

}

g

~

5 o

s

//

i /

t d

)q 4

c

/

n il 5

~

w 11 4

Q p

n

s

g o

4 h

I 4

!!il I

l

~

11 il I

i il I

i il g

I i

il I

i il i

9 9 9. g 5t l r

5 4

%o 4

I\\

\\.

k h

i g/

1 s

a 11 1

N

{R 11 1

i l

g E

i

~

li 1 85>>

g.

85 6

I

~

lG ni t

i l

n1 V

l l

\\\\

W ni o

U U

N

.k, I

n i

Mi l MI e

m

~

E

~

~

\\u s

m El I

U-g I

\\

g m

~

E g

-W) i

\\

_-g B

a 1

ii a

,_. a,-....... 6 7.".L *7,c...

C~

W x

_,~_

1-n 2

O E

8 a

eO GD 3511VH3dH31 SVS ON00FJX3V8

d

=

57

=

22

[\\

y S EMTsv t r Y Cnsa U-aw

...................g 21 GM M

---.--- u9

-s No

/7c Cns.n-

/

%s r

,i

.~.-o s f

s-q 20 i

s s

~

...... ~.,.

m s

Ne a.

.**......*===..=.N.~

• D.Wrre mave,,,,

e=

2

-[

m

~

(n ul 19 a:

G-18 1

37 l

0 150 300 450 800

• 150 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 Flt.L SCALE TIME (SECONOS)

WALL PLUME CALCULATIONS REV - E86 g

w i

t a

h i

i 1

E

.................. g 3

my u

______ my l

'1 1

\\h w-,

q 20 ?.t

.t s,

~~

? \\\\

1

(

\\

4,a u

l g

to 1

i le 1

1 17 0

1500 3(20 4500 8000 7500 00(B 10500 12000 13500 15000 FULL SCALE TIME (SECONDS) t g\\

WALL PLUME CALCULATIONS REV - E86

]

l

s00

..,.....,..,t SANS/ rs Vs TY CM Sd s00

1. ... g m

t Y

> w s"""~"

/ r;.3

...................y-Q m) 100 -f G

- --- - - u,

'E I

I i

...\\

ge -j z

/

.I I

• • ...g 500 1

s

.1\\

en

\\

.r..~(

u 400

........g

~

1 w

1 W.}

g' 6 -------------- - --

200 0

150 300 450 000 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 FULL SCALE TIME (SECONDS)

WALL PLUME CALCULATIONS REV - E86 e

Em g

-[

QA W I

.................. GA QAV j

700 1 -

.------- gay l

Q 1

fE

~

l l

gjo m

I G

s

_J

'l u.

g h3

}

= - - - - - -

J l

1 I

253 1

L g

j i..

i 0

1500 3000 4*00 8000 7500 9000 10500 12000 13500 15000 FLA.L SCALE TIME (SECOWS)

WALL PLUME CALCULATIONS REV - E86 p

SENSITIVITY-T0 PLUME WIDTH QA

= 1/4 SCALE PLUME WIDTH EQUAL TO SPARGER DIAMETER GA

= Full'. SCALE QAP = 1/4-SCALE I

h PLUMt!S COVER THE ENTIRE CIRCUMFERENCE GAP =.FutLSCALEJ 0

+

a

- a F

g

,Q asB3 i

i l

l R

i i

i i i

5 g

g i

k I

i i

. I l

j i I

g i:1

'i l g

}\\u g

a

I G

i

//

W s,4 g

R

//

I s

u a

et b

t m

I F-

!ll l Q. $

l//l/

4 u

2 l

/

//

3

/ i..i )

6 Q

t I

f

,. t',/

l m

~

.i I

\\

\\ "*%,

\\

S

._J

%s's

~

.W R

A g

A 9

9 A

e E

A E

R R

8 d

CD 3801VB3dH31 SYS ONn080)0V8

d b

l...

k 4

4s l

b\\

"g

=,

j It t

~

1 s

N l

~

~

m i.:

\\\\

\\

\\\\

\\

l I

.g Q

1,

\\\\

t l

\\\\

n s aikh

\\\\

a

\\

g i

l it O

i I

\\\\

\\

W I

sg v

l W

~

~

I s\\

1

\\g

\\\\

\\

~

lRw8

\\

i u.i

't\\

\\

I t

i ll W

\\

5 m

l

\\

\\'

si J

~

5 g 2i

.-., <.. ~.

g C

E E

R S

d eO to 38n1YB3dH31 SVD ON00800V8 d

=

bk

R

. d B. 3.

n a

1 il ll l

m i

ii i

i 11 i

,I il it

I i1 il L

il ili1 1

il

l il y

U ll

~

/

ft gg M

g

t i l w

Q

I J

r' E$8

~

,i t

w

.i

s i i

=

g* E,

=

i

/

h 8.- )

,I g

.i

~

t i

i

+

t s

i l

=

N'.N%,\\

g g.

u

.g w

B N

N R

R R

C, d

a (VISd) 380SS38d h$

)w w ti u

E I

u

$g 4

.L

's L +

.,,,,,,i........,g ag.

i 3

~

ll

\\

...a#

R

\\\\

\\\\\\

\\\\

l-

\\\\

\\\\

gg

\\\\

\\\\

\\\\

~

55I$

I.\\

i)

^

Rh

\\'\\,

~

l g

l

\\

I g

EY t

I t

R-

~

i I

\\

g

\\

\\

d

\\

$$w8

\\

~

~

~

\\

t

\\

l 1 >.Y

\\

t

\\

\\

w 8

\\\\

\\

. i. \\

\\ \\

.\\

a

)\\

>...,..b.\\

~

c La

'g:.,,,,.

3 s

a, g

• 1 30 m

_.s (VISd) 380SS38d a<

3e bY

]

6 S

\\

Y

,,g g g 5

i i

i I

I I

i i

i i

i i

i l

i I

i i

1 l

R i

I i

l 1

g I

l i

I I

i 1

l I

I l

It

."... !" f 2W r

w H

l l

w I

a

,J ggg I

w

,J g

,..e*

/

Q h

a i

I

(

_ f...

p

~

s. -

f y'

z, m

1 g

LJ g

uw

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

_ m.X Y

C3 B

B R

R R

8 R

R R

d a

(3) 3801V83dH31 SVD 80013 03H d

(e 7

L,

~

l g

d i

i i

i k

i i

l-i i

i I

i l l askB i

I i

i i

i tM i

i i'

l l

l.

"R -W 1

i 1

i i

r ills i

I w

i i

t i

i s

i i

i Bd>

i I

E W

i i

j g

l 8

i i

R w

1 i

i j

8 1

E w

i i

~

u i

W' w

.n, m ---

.e 5

E E

E E

E E

E E,

d d

(d) 3Hn1VH3dH31 SVD 80013 03H

<:=

h

.~.

l SENSITIVITY STUDIES - RESULTS

(

o Scalability of Results is unaffected by variations in 1/4 scale thermal properties I

Background gas velocity Plume width

?

-~s i

1 i

l I

l I

i CONCLUSIONS o

comparisons of model predictions with experimental data demonstrate reasonable agreement Base,d on succdss of model/ data comparisons, the model o

is believed to treat major heat loss mechanisms f

correctly o

The model indicates that background gas temperatures in the 1/4 scale bound background gas temperatures in full scale during high hydrogen release periods o

The model indicates that the background gas temperatures in the 1/4 scale are somewhat lower than background gas temperatures in full scale during low release tail o

The model indicates that the 1/4 scale BCU floor temperatures are somewhat lower than full scale BCU floor temperatures o

Overall, analysis shows 1/4 scale data provide reasonably accurate description of full scale thermal environment when extrapolated by Froude scaling i

Jd

~

g4 N

)

PRODUCTION TEST STATUS f

4

+

o In November, BCOG initiated an extended outage to reinstrument the test facility Outage was necessary based on results from test S-16 Intent was to resume testing in late December o

Testing resumed in early January Completed additional scoping test with PNPP grating Completed six PNPP production tests

- s o

Numerous problems encountered in conducting tests

.ju Problems identified in LOCA vent hydtcgen orifices Target facility initial conditions not reached for all tests Hydrogen flow transducer failed during one test o Net result is that all tests completed in January will be repeated I

L -

s no.-

s PRODUCTION TEST STATUS O

Testing completed to date showed several things Reinstrumentation appears to be effective Complex calorimeter was placed in a severe thermal envircnment to support methodology validation (Task 12)

No fundamental changes were observed in the combustion phenomena o

Current facility status Numerous modifications were made to enhance cold weather operability Rework on LOCA vent orifices completed Installed new sparger at 225 degree azimuth Re-evaluating methods to decrease thermocouple wetting o

Expect to resume production testing in late March t

e 72

v l

l

~.

nificant h'ydrogen production" is defined as release of enough hydrogen for the wetwell concentration to reach J.5 volume percent.

In order to be consistent with te:ts, igriters should Im turned on at a much lower hydrogen concentration and mith a much shorter time-delay. HG0G will take this comment into consideration.

(2)/.-Regarding equipment survivability, staff que9tioned whether HC0G would c

consider environmental qualification test data described in NRC information Notice 86-02, January 6, 1986 for Limitorque valve opsrators with magnesium rotors. Further description of the tests and recommended corrective actions are contained in the General Electric Service Information Letter (SIL) No. 425.

HC0G will take this comment into consideration.

e orionalmesed by

~

L.1-. -Kintner, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing Enctosures:

As : nted cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR PD#4 Reading WButler LKintner M0'Brien Young, OELD EJordan BGrimes ACRS (10)

NRC Participants I

PD#4/P PD#4/D LKintner:lb WButler 04/07/86 04/ /86

?