ML20155H380

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 980915 Meeting with Util & Contractor Polestar Applied Technology,Inc in Rockville,Md Re Revised Accident Source Term for Perry Pilot Plant Review.List of Meeting Participants & Nonproprietary Handouts Encl
ML20155H380
Person / Time
Site: Perry FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 10/29/1998
From: Pickett D
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9811100108
Download: ML20155H380 (38)
v • d • e


Text

_ . _ _ .

.,' q vn usuq $p# MP k UNITED STATES l

  • NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

.,, wAeHINGToN, D.C. 30eeH001

% ,* October 29, 1998 LICENSEE: Cleveland Electric illuminating Company j FACILITY: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF SEPTEMBER 15,1998 MEETING ON REVISED ACCIDENT SOURCE TERM FOR PERRY PILOT PLANT REVIEW l 1

~

On September 15,1998, NRC staff met with representatives of Cleveland Electric illuminating Company (CEI) and their contractors, Polestar Applied Technology, Inc., in Rockville, Maryland.

The Perry facility is the lead pilot plant for the use of revised accident source term (RAST). The

{

purpose of the meeting was to discuss the licensee's submittal of July 22,1998, with both the '

licensee and their contractor. A list of the meeting participants is included as Enclosure 1. The j non-proprietary handouts are included la Enclosure 2. As described in the staff's letter to the licensee dated October 6,1998, the Polestar information identified as proprietary in the ,

submittal of July 22,1998, will be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR '

2.790(b)(5) and Section 103(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Accordingly,

the meeting handouts containing similar, proprietary information will also be withheld from public disclosure.

While the staff has completed its rebaselir,ing review under the overall RAST effort, the pilot plant reviews are just getting underway. The licensee stressed the importance of this submittal to support their seventh refueling outage (currently scheduled for April 1999). The submittal i under review represents a limited, selective application of RAST. Pending staff approval, the  ;

licensee intends to eliminate the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) leakage control system and I relax the maximum allowable leakage rates for the MSIVs. It is the staff's understanding that 1 the licensee may revisit RAST in the future to request further relaxation to the technical l specifications.

P' olestar representatives provided an in-depth discussion of the AP600 work and its applicability to the Perry submittal. Detailed discussions focused on computer modeling, thermal hydraulics assumptions, pH evaluation, and aerosol removal in the drywell, steam lines, and containment.

In previous discussions with the licensee, the staff has Indicated its intention to support the licensee's outage schedule. However, the staff has also informed the licensee that some of the

[ non-conservatisms in their modeling may need to be modified in order to reach this goal.

The meeting identified a number of areas that will require further staff review and other meas r

that must be addressed by the licensee. The following issues were idei.Wed: {l Regarding thermal-hydraulics assumptions, complete mixing between the drywell/ containment atmospheres can be assumed 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the accident. 0\

However, resolution was not reached for the steaming rate between the drywell and containment during the initial 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. The staff identified a conservative value of 500 j4 i- standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) wher9as the licensee's submittal assumed 6200 scfm.

9811100100 981029 ~

4 2

PDR p-ADOCK 05000440 PDR f  %.L&$ .i

+ - + - - , - , -- - , - ,m w,.,es---www en,- ,e+v -- - m,----, e

\

.. .i e I

2-l The licensee needs to address the potentialimpact of automatic depressurization

! system actuation on the steaming rate.

Current dose guidelines in the regulations address thyroid and whole body dose limits.

However, in order to accept total effective dose equivalent doses, exemptions must be submitted against 10 CFR 50 (control room dose) and 10 CFR 100 (low population zone l and exclusion area boundary doses). i The licensee will need to address the impact of RAST on long-term equipment qualification.

The calculation of record, to be included in any updated safety analysis report update reflecting RAST, must reflect any adjustments in the analysis made to obtain NRC staff approval. 1 The staff has forwarded the pH analysis to contractors at Oak Ridge. No apparent issues have been idenufied.

Arguments supporting aerosol removal rates appear persuasive. The staff has not identified any apparent issues.

In closing remarks, both the licensee and staff agreed that close communications must be maintained. The staff Intends to complete their review by the end of the calendar year and this will require expedited efforts by both the staff and the licensee.

Q v 9M Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager l Project Directorate ill 2 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l l Docket No. 50-440

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encis: See next page l

I l

l l

I -_ _ _ - - - - _ _ .-

[ t ,

. October 29, 1998 The licensee needs to address the potentialimpact of automatic depressurization e system actuation on the steaming rate.

Current dose guidelines in the regulations address thyroid and whole body dose limits.

However, in order to accept total effective dose equivalent doses, exemptions must be submitted against 10 CFR 50 (control room dose) and 10 CFR 100 (Iow population zone and exclusion area boundary doses).

The licensee will need to address the impact of RAST on long term equipment qualification.

. The calculation of record, to be included in any updated safety analysis report update reflecting RAST, must reflect any adjustments in the analysis made to obtain NRC staff approval.

The staff has forwarded the pH analysis to contractors at Oak Ridge. No apparent issues have been identified.

Arguments supporting aerosol removal r' ates appear persuasive. The staff has not identified any apparent issues.

In closing remarks, both the licensee and staff agreed that close communications must be maintained.. The staff intends to complete their review by the end of the calendar year and this will require expedited efforts by both the staff and the licensee.

Original signed by:

Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1112 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-440

Enclosures:

As stated

' cc w/encis: See next page DISTRIBUTION Hard Coov w/encls E-mail w/ Encl 1 Docket File, SCollins (SJC1) EAdensam CBerlinger PD lll-2 Re'ading FMiraglia (FJM) CMiller PUBLIC THiltz GHolahan GGrant, Rlli BBoger JRoe Hard Conv w/Enci 1 OGC ACRS

' DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ PERRY \MTG9 15. SUM Tm receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "c" = Copy without enclosures "E* = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy 0FFICE PM:P]Ilh2 E LA:PDIII-2 & D:PDIII-2 c. BC:PERB NAME DPicIe'tt' EBarnhillQff SRichards E6 'CMiller*

DATE 10/11/98 10/oT /98 ~~ 10/21/98 10/26/98 10/ /98

$See previous concurrence OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

L 4

s' .*

October 29, 1998

- The licensee needs to address the potentialimpact of automatic depressurization system actuation on the steaming rate.

- Current dose guidelines in the regulations address thyroid and whole body dose limits.

However, in order to accept total effective dose equivalent doses, exemptions must be submitted against 10 CFR 50 (control room dose) and 10 CFR 100 (low population zone and exclusion area boundary doses).

- The licensee will need to address the impact of RAST on long-term equipment qualification.

-- The calculation of record, to be included in any updated safety analysis report update reflecting RAST, must reflect any adjustments in the analysis made to obtain NRC staff approval.

J The staff has forwarded the pH analysis to contractors at Oak Ridge. No apparent issues have been identified.

Arguments supporting aerosol removal rates appear persuasive. The staff has not identified any apparent issues, in closing remarks, both the licensee and staff agreed that close communications must be maintained. The staff intends to complete their review by the end of the calendar year and this will require expedited efforts by both the staff and the licensee.

Original signed by:

Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager l Project Directorate lil 2 Division of Reactor Projects lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

Docket No. 50-440 l

Enclosures:

As stated

'cc w/encis: See next page DISTRIBUTION 4 ' Hard Conv w/encla E-mail w/ Encl 1 Docket File SCollins (SJC1) EAdensam CBerlinger PD 111-2 Reading FMiraglia (FJM) CMiller PUBLIC THiltz GHolahan GGrant, Rill BBoger JRoe Hard Conv w/ Encl 1 F OGC l

ACRS DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ PERRY \MTG9 15. SUM

' Ts receive a copy of tNo document, Indicate in the bon *c" = Copy without enclosures *E" = Copy with enclosures *N* = No copy 0FFICE- PM:Pllik2 Tc, LA:POIII-2 6 D:POIII-2 C. BC:PERB NAME- DP1 6 tt' EBarnhil1Qff SRichards @@' Chiller

  • DATE 10/11/98 10/c7 /98 ~ 10/21/98 10/26/98 10/ /98
  • See previous concurrence OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1

- - , . - , -w w.. . - . . . - - , m_ -. --,m.-,,y-..,v.-n.rmy- , - - - , , . - - - . , . . - , ,we

Centerior Service Company Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 I. .cc:

Mary E. O'Reilly James R. Williams FirstEnergy - A290 Chief of Staff 10 Center Road Ohio Emergency Management Agency Perry, OH 44081 2855 West Dublin Granville Road Columbus, OH 43235-2206 Resident inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Donna Owene. Director P.O. Box 331 Ohio Department of Commerca )

Perry, OH 44081-0331 Division ofIndustrial Compliance ,

Bureau of Operations & Maintenance

]

Regional Administrator, Region ill 6606 Tussing Road ,

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 4009 801 Warrenville Road Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-9009 l Lisle, IL 60532-4531 Mayor, Village of North Perry l L Sue Hiatt . North Perry Village Hall 1 i OCRE Interim Representative 4778 Lockwood Road L 8275 Munson North Perry Village, OH 44081 j l Mentor, OH 44060 1 Radiological Health Program Henry L. Hegrat .

Ohio Department of Health Regulatory Affairr Manager . P.O. Box 118

. Cleveland Electri:liluminating Co. Columbus, OH 43266-0118 L . Perry Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 97. A210 Ohio Environmental Protection Perry, OH 44081 Agency

DERR-Compliance Unit Lew W. Myers ATTN
Mr. Zack A. Clayton Vice President - Nuclear, Perry P.O. Box 1049 Centerior Service Company '

Columbus, OH 43266-0149 i JP.O. Box 97, A200 l Perry, OH 44081 Chairman L Perry Township Board of Trustees

Mayor, Village of Perry 3750 Center Road, Box 65 4203 Harper Street Perry, OH 44081 l

. Perry, OH 44081 l State of Ohio i L

FirstEnergy Corporation Public Utilities Commission l

. Michael Beiting East Broad Street Associate General Counsel Columbus, OH 43266-0573 I 76 S. Main Akron, OH 44308 William R. Kanda, Jr., Plant Manager t Cleveland Electric illuminating Co.

l Perry Nuclear Power Plant i P.O. Box 97, SB306 Perry, OH 44081 v..

}:

,' e MEETING ATTENDEES p NRC AND CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY REVISED ACCIDENT SOURCE TERM SEPTEMBER 15,1998 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.

Jim Powers .

AlWidmer Gary Rhoads' Bradley S. Ferrell SCIENTECH - NUS HEl Dave Sturiley Kurt Cozens POLESTAR David Leaver Jim Metcalf HEC Richard Emch

' Jay Lee Paul Boehnert -

. Carolyn Lauron

. Charles Tinkler Ches'ter Gingrich Michael Snodderly Stephen Lavle s Mark Blumberg

' Jason Schaperow Kris Parczewski Paul Shemanski

. Doug Pickett =

Enclosure 1

~~

Perry Nuclear Power Plant  :

PRofvtteTAc5 TLi De3 Aga g4 ,,g,D Revised DBA Source Term Application wg,g for Perry Plant -

~

Presented to NRC i

Presented by First Energy, Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

and ,

Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

September 15,1998 w

1 a

3

~ .

}

oa , ,

Polestar Applied Technology, Inc. .

i

Perry Nuclear Power Plant -

Contents of Presentation  :

t i

~

- Discussion of AP600 work vs. Perry application -

l

- Thermal-hydraulics assumptions and SECY 98-154 t

- pH evaluation .

- Aerosol removal in drywell, steam lines, and containment  ;

ii

~

i t

oam2 Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

i

CenteriorEnergy Corporation .

a n n a n a n- -

i 9, .

~ ~

--- CONTAINMENT

=- a .-u

!&O l

- E i muiiB .

l l i '

M5IV MSIV 3RD

~

l .- -.

- onneu- -

l macron vessa.

o<C"D,_

' ih .

i l ,

1 t

{i- ,

si-essio,.

E E -

Poot

, PERRY MARK:III CONTAINMENT Revised DBA Source Tenn Pilot Plant Application 5

._________..=_m,-_ -

- -_ m_- - . = -. = - _ _ _ = = _ . - =____L___ --u - -mee--ers=.e .==----u-_-ea__=.=.=.-mh-

_ _.C e - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - -

~

4 Perry Nuclear Power Plant -

AP600 Discussion in Perry Context

- Containment T/H would tend to play an important role for AP600  ;

since AP600 credited heat transfer-driven aerosol removal in addition to sedimentation (note that the only natural removal credited in the Perry analysis is sedimentation) t - Because of this, we looked at sensitivity of the removal to 1

sequence type in AP600; we found that as long as total heat
transfer did not change too much, removal also did not change  !

much

- The ACRS April 9,1998 letter states that sedimentation j l

processes can be accounted for explicitly without specifying T/H ~

conditions; for Perry, T/H effects on natural aerosol sedimentation removal are very small l

- The ACRS letter also states that the NRC should make it clear  ;

! that credit for thermophoresis and diffusiophoresis is not intended i to be generic for other plant designs; it was never our intent to try to obtain generic approval of any particular AP600 phenomenon for applicatica to operating plants, and this is part of the reason l why we have provided detailed analyses for Perry ,

oa m Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

.) !

Perry Nuclear Power Plant '!

1 AP600 Discussion in Perry Context (continued)

- The Perry analysis specified containment T/H conditions to assure i

reasonably conservative treatment of three effects:

i

- The mass of gas and aerosol contained in a standard cubic foot of MSIV leakage (MSIV leakage is specified in units of standard cubic feet per hour [scfh]) - lower drywell pressures were selected to increase the fission product mass per scfh leaked through the MSIVs ,

- The volumetric steam flow rate during core-melt and from the recovered core-melt at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> into the accident; minimal steam was considered in estimating the volumetric flow; a similar effect occurred in AP600 for sequence 3BE and other sequences at the time of reflood, resulting in steam generation into containment

! - Suppression pool bypass - all of the above volumetric flow was assumed to bypass the pool and flow directly into the containment DR W985 Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

=,

'f I

Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

i t

+ Importance
- Transport of Activity from DW to Containment
- Pool Bypass / Scrubbing
- Spray Initiation (S~ote that Sprays are Currently l Credited in Perry DBA Dose Analysis) 4
- Conditions m DW and Containment (Temperature, Density, Etc.)

i

~

Polestar Applied Technology for Peny Nuclear Power Plant I  ;

i

Nl 1

! Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

L h

l-

+ Historical Use of Containment Thermal-l Hydraulics in DBA Dose Analysis l - Purge Valve Closure / Coolant Release Mass l - Spray Initiation Time

- Spray Lambda for ElementalIodine e

l - Recirculation Time / Spray pH and Max I2DF

! - ESF Leakage Treatment l - Suppression Pool Bypass Fraction

~

i i

2 l Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant i j

, e e

Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

+ Core Damage Accident Progression

- Loss of Coolant Loss of RCPB Integrity (Fast)

Loss ofHeat Removal (Slow)

- Core Heat-Up (Augmented by Clad Oxidation)

- Fission Product Release

- Debris Relocation / Partial Quench

- ECCS Recovery and Complete Quench (for  !

DBA - see SECY-94-300) .

I Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant 3

b i

^

Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

t i + Current Containment DBA for Perry is a Main Steamline Break - Basis for T-H  :

Conditions for DBA Dose Analysis

+ Differences between MSLB for Dose Analysis Vs. Containment DBA

- Design Basis Levels ofPool Bypass  ;

- Spray Actuation at 10 Minutes after Vessel Low Level

- Substantial Clad Oxidation Yielding H2 i

Polestar Applied Tecimology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant 4

Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

+ Findings for Perry

- DW Substantially Purged of Activity when Core Debris Quenched (" Sweep-Out")

- Pool Scrubbing Neglected for Design Levels of Pool Bypass and Conservative Sweep-Out

- Sprays Available at 10 Minutes with Pool Bypass (Supports Current Assumption) 4 t - Sprays without Core Cooling Tend to Keep

Containment Pressure Low Even with Bypass 5

Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Niiclear Power Plant

.- .'l Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

+ DW Pressure and Temperature Used 400

  • nurtmune 300 .

m k F so 2o i E

M

.g j .. .

g ,

N l

.E

} l x x -

s* ,

,1s0 -y l g 10

\ l N *-

( _ = i

. 1 day 12 ders

% , 100 de e N

! l ll .'= 0 -

I 50 .gos io7 l 101 102 103 104 tos

' TIME (sect e ,

Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant 6 l

e f i

a L Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

1 l + Containment Pressure and Temp Used

~

y_ u,aaw - 1-DESIGN PfESSURE iS 0.8 peld .

18 l

220 enessuns 14 203 Taarsmia: \, '

12 180 N \\

i r w

' l E

,, iso , , _ ,

, g3 to . a? y T . .-- .

c s . .. - - - -- --- - -- - O$s E f u N P s, i 8 a4 140 , J E

i ,

  1. I

( I i  ! a

$2c ,

y s

,,' s .. . . . I s s .

i ion

', \ '

4

\ <

s '

" i 4., 22 4.v. 3o0' j 1n

'O 1os -.

ios # 107 101 102 103 104

  • ' **' , 7 Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant l

a

l .l r

Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

j + Comparison of Grand Gulf Recovered Core

! Melt from SECY-98-154 to Perry DBA t

i - Grand GulfDone with MELCOR

- Earlier Debris Quench (Approx.1/2 Hour Vs. 2 Hours for Perry)

~

- Substantially Greater Flow From DW to Containment at Time of Quench I - Substantial Pool Scrubbing (Vs. Limited Pool Scrubbing for Perry, Which was Neglected) 8

! PolesMr Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant l

Comparison of GG AE/ Rec (MELCOR-SECY-98-154) vs. Perry DBA DW to Containment Flow .

1.00E+04 i

GG AE (w/ rec) 1.00E+03 J Perry DBA I I i l 3 I 11 I 11 1.00E+C2 - I f ,

I I g I

I l u 3 11 /'~-- .

e 1

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

g 3, o, . i , I, f _ . . _ _ _ .

to i I g /

E I i 1

g$

/

I i 'I t I /\

1.00E+00 l / g

  • l I

s' g

\

\

l

\ l l I \ t I i \ t I I \

4 1.00E i I \ l 1 \

3 I I  ;

l g I i 1.00E-02 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

~

Time - Hours  ;

i 9  :

Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant i

E~ ~

f Comparison of GG AE/ Rec (RADTRAD-SECY-98-154) vs. Perry DBA

DW to Containment Flow ^ .

1.00E+04

GG AE (w/ rec) 1.00E+03 - Perry DBA 1.00E+02 -- f .

l u, g___________________________________ _ ___

I 1.00E+01 -

to E

1.00E+00 --

1.00E-01 -

a f 1.00E-02 .

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time - Hours 4

10 Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant  ;

f l

Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

i

+ Comparison of Grand Gulf Station Blackout from NUREG/CR-4624 to Perry DBA

- Core Uncovery at t = 8 Hours Vs. t = 0

- Quench of Core Debris in Lower Vessel Head (until Dry-Out) Vs. ECCS Recovery

- Substantially Greater Flow from DW to Containment at Time of Quench (if Flow Viewed as Small Break Rather Than SRV Discharge) iI Polestar Applied Technology for Peny Nuclear Power Plant

d i

Core Damage Progression '- GG TB. (STCP-MARCH-NUREG/CR-4624) -

3500 1

~

~~

Ave Core T (F) ,

3000 -- _._

Melt Fract s

dad Ox Fract -- 0.8 1

2500 -~ I p_____.____- - 0.7  ;

I g -- 0.6 m 2000- -

g e F u.

v i .o

n. I -

- 0.5 U  :

G e

1 e u.

I .

F 1500-- -

3 g

- 0.4

)  ;

,/ \

/ I -

- 0.3 1000 -- / *

/ I ,

/ e i

/ I

. ,/ -

- 0.2 l l

. 1 500 -- I l j _. .._.__ . -- 0.1 5

'.- I t

0 .

f'~~... * -- "T,/  : 0 ,

. 450 500 550 600 650 700  :

Time (min)  ;

Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant . 12

  • 3 i

RPV Water Mass, RPV NG Inventory, and Containment Pressure - GG TB (STCP-MARCH)

~

45 0.7

,5

'\

40-- / 1

.-  : ./~'--: - 0.6

. /

-/
;j 35-- ,

j'.'

}.' -- 0.5 y O

30--

,_____ ------------------- / -~-------'. *

. .c

.2 .

~ ~~

l  ; y I --0.4 .E E.25--

u ./  ; ,

o , . u e i \ 8

9 20 - -

I'* *

-- 0.3 c0

  • ,/

o

  • i. O r.

l '

  • D 15-- /

u e

. E

,/ .

-- 0.2 '

RPV wtr mass

  • 10-- -

Cont Pressure /

. . . .. . - RPV N Gas [

-- 0.1 5- l .

.~ '

O  :  !~~~~  :  :

0 450 500 550 600 650 700 Time (min)  ;

13 >

Polestar Apphed Technology for Peny Nuclear Power Plant i

1 Comparison of GG TB (STCP-MARCH).vs. Perry DBA 4

DW to Containment Flow .

s 1000 ,

i> Perry DBA

_ _ --GG TB [

I 100 -

-~

l 3 I y I s, I g i I

~

10 - -

( f l

i I I t

f u

g 's'~~ ~

f I-l g

l i s 's I g I .

m '

E 's s i i 3

i 1

1 -

s f g ,

~ '

  • ~~,__ ~',, - l l

\

-\, I g 1  :

I I 0.1 - -

I g

l g I  ;

i I I I ,

l I i

. . i 1.

O.01  : - '

t 0 . 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 .

Time - Hours 1 Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant ,

14

?i

.r Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis .

+ Conclusions

- Core Damage Accidents Involving Loss of Coolant (Whether by RCPB Break or Loss of ,

Cooling) Have Characteristic Behavior Which j Can be Abstracted and Simplified (" Stylized")

for DBA Dose Analysis Purposes Stylized" DBA T-H Makes Sense (Consistent with Philosophy ofNUREG-1465)

- Perry DBA Analysis Conservative with Respect to Sweep-Out Rate and Pool Scrubbing Credit Polestar Applied Technology for Perry Nuclear Power Plant 15 1

.: I

Perry Nuclear Power Plant ,

l pH Determination Perry containment post-accident water pool pH was determined using l

the benchmarked, QA code, STARpH.

- The pH models in STARpH are based primarily upon the ORNL

methodology; there are three main models
- Radiolysis of Water. Calculates the generation of HNO3 due to the radiolysis of air and water as'a function of time j i - Time steps used in the code are 1 h,2 h,5 h,12 h,1 d,3 d,10 d,20 d, and 30 d

- Separate models are provided for BWRs and PWRs -

- Models initial pH of the pool and the effect of carbonic acid

~

- Models the pH effect of fission products released to the pool l - Radiolysis of Cable: Calculates the generation of hcl due to radiolysis of electrical cable insulation in the containment  :

- Same time steps as above

- Separate models for hypalon and PVC

- Separate outputs for PWRs and BWRs

- Add Acid and Add Base: Calculates the pH of water pools containing buffers (e.g., phosphate, borate) with strong acid (e.g., HNO 3 , hcl) or l .

strong base (e.g., NaOH) additions 4

oa m Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Perry STARpH Inputs and Outputs

- Radiolysis of Water ,

- Inputs

- Fission product inventory (e.g.,43 kg ofiodine group)

- Containment water pool volume (inci RCS) - 4.81E6 L

- Initial pH of pool- 6

- Fraction of fission products released to containment in pool- ,

0.87  ;

- Presence of CO2in containment syes

- Outputs - see attached  ;

r os.. is Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

i a

Perry Nuclear Power Plant .

Perry STARpH Inputs and Outputs (continued)  :

f i

- Radiolysis of Cable' ]

- Inputs

- Reactor thermal power- 3758 3 .

- Containment free volume - 4.08E10 cm ~

- Containment water pool volume - 4.81E6 L

- Mass of hypalon bearing cable insulation jacket - 29,000 lbm

- Fraction of fission products released to containment in pool- t 0.87

- Diameter of cable (2.26 cm), thickness of hypalon jacket (45 i mils), and jacket density (1.55 g/cms) - used to evaluate constants in hcl production equation l.

- Outputs - see attached t Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

J oeum is

d 4 s # y., -4J A w 4-- 4-us y-44 45 4 ,5 4 A 3a- ha 4. # e J. 46 4-E- 4 Jr._6-_m J e d a ,p.- e.mma_m,h.8 .s, asM4444d - AM. J a M

'f* ,4 pe

- - . , _ ~

O Om -

C 2 01 s n. _

0 '

s h

- R, e

3  %::

U C, @& b

  • - ow E 8, 3 C sT)

O e e. e8

3. .-

V F U' Ii a

C g to M^ 'U $}

A a 1..

,&ye s

LO c:, I'.

+,

s .<

, a3 y3 s.

  • g ,-
  • 'n er t m gC yf (X) b,: a!

O ei 3 ., g .n. ,

C y-= - -

Q C "E A D Uh 4 J. O o m '

ce - 6'i .

b ^O  !

u v

'.L8.

e  :

g a p>p . 4.j% ,

L. t- l NC Y.  ![

o p m.ea o1 r

a c:

1 Q.  ;;u a ,o W  !

6 & W o

W

., f g) sjz e <

(U --

o e s e

,a,,s F. , <. )g 3 a ,g=., ws . a.

+ 1 O 6 @ ' co. 9 ;p 'A t  ;

lll g C 00 .!9 i; 9u 2 g O to O f/.i M g

gco .

4 , 1 o...

O- "O I 1

-lO N

'j m

.== =:n- . -=.x===.=..=.--=.:/ .

u, O

4

= - ,, , -. , - -.w., _ , . , . - . - - . , , _ , - . _ . - - . - , _ , ,_ , . , , .-,- ,.__. . , _ _ , . , .. .r, . , ,.

---=~ ~"

Perry Nuclear Power Plant =~- -

Aerosol Removs! in Drywell Aerosol Sedimentation Calculated with Polestar STARNAUA-Code

- No Diffusiophoresis or Thermophoresis included Important inputs

-- Aerosol Size Distribution

- Active Aerosol Density / Shape Factor

- Active Aerosol Mass

- Inert Aerosol Density / Shape Factor

- Inert Aerosol Mass

- Compartment Volume

- Compartment Sedimentation Area

- Compartment Leakage l

1 4

mu i Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

L . ,

Perry Nuciear Power Plant -

Aerosol Removal in Steamlines j

- Two Steamline " Configurations" Considered l

- Configuration 1 - MSIV Failed Open in One Line

! - Configuration 2 -Third Isolation Valve in All Lines Fails to Close at t = 20 Minutes (Manual Action)

- -Configuration 2 is Limiting i STLCV_1 (Node 7)

I 100 scm c

. - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ . 100 sem -

_- a t

DRYWEU- -- ----------- , ----------------

l 'mT) L T*, ,Ts. .

150 sem ' T' 'T I-T k------------IN-----------~~ 150 sem STLCV_3 (Node 9) l STL_CV -_2 (Node 8) i t

mm, 3 Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

I 1

i Perry Nuclear Power Plant

[ Aerosol Removal in Steamlines

~

i l

Main Steamline Break is DBA l - Steamline Assumed to Break Just inside inboard MSIV in l One Line with MSIVs Leaking at 100 scfh i - One Other Line Leaks at 100 scfh, One at 50 scfh, and One at i 0 scfh i - Intact Steamlines Credited Upstream of Inboard MSIV and in

Space between MSIVs

- Broken Steamline Credited Only between MSIVs

- Steamlines between Outboard MSIVs and Failed-Open Third Isolation Valves Not Credited

- Steamline Sections between MSIVs are 49. feet in Length with I

a Support Clamp Located near the Midpoint - Heat Transfer (and Axial Temperature Gradients) Causes a Transition from a Uniform Flow State to a Well-Mixed State Over Time

! - Steamline Sections inside inboard MiWs Always Well-Mixed 4

su m, o Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

t

Perry Nuclear Power Plant

~

Aerosol Removal in Steamlines j i

- For Configuration 2 Aerosol Retention Consists of

- Retention in the Space between MSIVs for One Steamline Leaking at 100 scfh j

- Uniform Flow with Progressively Less Credit

- Source = Drywell

- Retention in the Space between the RPV and the inboard  !

MSIV for a Second Steamline Leaking at 100 scfh (and One at 50 scfh)

- Well-Mixed Volume

- Source = Drywell

- Retention in the Space between MSIVs for the Second '

Steamline Leaking at 100 scfh (and One at 50 scfh)

- Uniform Flow with Progressively Less Credit

- Source =.Well-Mixed Volume Upstream mu m. 7 Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

t

.______________________-__--__-__-_________--_a

i

=

i .

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Aerosol Removal by Containment Spray j

- Perry containment spray aerosol removal was determined using i

the benchmarked, QA code, STARNAUA-

. User specifies spray source including: one or more rel ease j

periods, flow rates, spray temperature, spray droplet size distribution (mean droplet radius and geometric standard.

l deviation) ~

- Model calculates the fraction of droplets in each droplet size bin,  ;

calculates the collection efficiency of the combination of each droplet size bin with each aerosol size bin, and sums these  !

efficiencies to get the aerosol' collection efficiency of the complete

droplet distribution

! - Mechanisms that contribute to collection efficiency include.

- interception j - impaction -

t

- Brownian diffusion of aerosol particles to the droplet i

- diffusiophoretic deposition of particles to the droplet if T/H conditions result in steam condensation on the droplets 1 Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

oam3 i

s.;

v; Perry Nuclear Power Plant Perry Spray Removal Inputs l :

f - Calc PSAT 04202U.03 supplied inputs: ,

- Sprayed region volume

- Unsprayed region volume

- Spray fall height' -

- Mixing rate between sprayed and unsprayed regions

- Geom. number mean radius and geom. std deviation of spray j droplets

- Spray flow rate

- Time of spray initiation and spray duration Calc PSAT 04202H.05 supplied inputs: .i

- Aerosol source rate into sprayed region

- Spray temperature os. . y Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

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

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ ______._5 _ _ - . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

- 'p

! i L Perry Nuclear Power Plant 1

7 i Spray Removal Conservatis.ms 7 .

i - Effect of pool scrubbing on aerosol source is neglected i i

- Utilized version of NUREG models which tended to reduce .

removal rate (Re correlation with min.' terminal velocity, min.

c Brownian diffusion, neglected diffusiophoresis)

- Underestimated mixing ~ rate between sprayed and unsprayed t regions i

- Neglected natural removal in unsprayed region I .- Underestimated ~ aerosol particle size entering sprayed and  ;

, unsprayed regions i I

! Only one' spray train credited t

i  !

i j

i-  !

mm, Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.  !

I

- - _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ ______-_ ___-_____-______________-____ ___-___- - ___--__ - _-____=__ -__- _ - _____-_______ ___-____- ______- - __ - ___ _ _ __-___-_--__J

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20155H380&oldid=3348148"