ML16307A490: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML16307A490
| number = ML16307A490
| issue date = 10/25/2016
| issue date = 10/25/2016
| title = 10/25/2016 Presentation Slides from Public Meeting Calvert Cliffs GSI-191 Resolution Update
| title = Presentation Slides from Public Meeting Calvert Cliffs GSI-191 Resolution Update
| author name = Green K
| author name = Green K
| author affiliation = Exelon Nuclear Generation Corp
| author affiliation = Exelon Nuclear Generation Corp
| addressee name = Guzman R V
| addressee name = Guzman R
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI-1
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI-1
| docket = 05000317, 05000318
| docket = 05000317, 05000318
| license number = DPR-053, DPR-069
| license number = DPR-053, DPR-069
| contact person = Guzman R V
| contact person = Guzman R
| case reference number = CAC MF8521, CAC MF8522
| case reference number = CAC MF8521, CAC MF8522
| document type = Slides and Viewgraphs
| document type = Slides and Viewgraphs
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Calvert Cliffs GSI-191 ProgramThermal Hydraulic Analysis of Containment Response and Acceptable Head Loss Test SelectionOctober 25, 2016 AgendaIntroductions Objectives for MeetingThermal Hydraulic Analysis of ContainmentDemonstrate that one CS pump will be secured prior to the onset of chemical precipitationContainment pressure reduces to 2.8 psig prior to containment pool reducing to 140&deg;FAcceptable Strainer Head Loss TestIdentify chemical effects head loss test applicable simplified risk-informed approachStaff Questions & ConcernsSchedule for Future Periodic Meetings Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan1 CCNPP AttendeesJake Smith Director Site EngineeringJohn Haydin M&CU Engineering ManagerAndre Drake Lead Responsible Engineer GSI-191Craig Sellers Project Manager GSI-191Eric Federline Project SupportCalvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan2 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of ContainmentInvestigate Sump Temperature and Containment PressureLarge Break LOCA EventsCooldown Scenarios2 Containment Spray Pump + 2 Containment Air CoolersSlower Cooldown2 Containment Spray Pumps + 4 Containment Air Coolers Rapid CooldownIn all cases, pool temperature > 140&deg;F when containment pressure reduces to 2.8 psigOne Containment Spray Pump secured at containment pressure < 2.8 psigChemical precipitants remain soluble until pool temperature reduces to 140&deg;FCold Leg Break, Max SI, Max Instrument Uncertainty, pool = 138.8&deg;F @ 2.48 psigCold Leg Break produces 10% to 20% less precipitateCalvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan3 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis Results2 CS pumps + 2 CACsHot Leg BreakTime to 140&deg;F = 108.3 hoursTime to 2.8 psig = 47.2 hoursTime to secure pump = 61.1 hoursPressure @ 140&deg;F = 1.98 psigCold Leg BreakTime to 140&deg;F = 77.8 hoursTime to 2.8 psig = 63.9 hoursTime to secure pump = 13.9 hoursPressure @ 140&deg;F = 2.58 psigCalvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan42 CS pumps + 4 CACsHot Leg BreakTime to 140&deg;F = 86.1 hoursTime to 2.8 psig = 23.6 hoursTime to secure pump = 62.5 hoursPressure @ 140&deg;F = 1.95 psigCold Leg BreakTime to 140&deg;F = 50.0 hoursTime to 2.8 psig = 38.9 hoursTime to secure pump = 11.1 hoursPressure @ 140&deg;F = 2.63 psig Thermal Hydraulic Response After CS Pump TripContainment Spray primary heat removal for containment poolPressure and Temperature increase after pump tripPressure increase can auto restart CS pumpEOPs being revised to prevent auto restart of CS pumpCalvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan50.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0101001000Containment Pressure (psig)Time (hr)CL Slower CooldownHL Slower CooldownCL Rapid CooldownHL Rapid Cooldown110120130140150160170101001000Sump Water Temperature (F)Time (hr)CL Slower CooldownHL Slower CooldownCL Rapid CooldownHL Rapid Cooldown 2010 Head Loss Testing Test 5Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan6CCNPP performed a sequence of strainer head loss tests in 2010 with varying, scaled debris loadsTest 5 is most appropriate test to use to define critical break size Largest amount of fiber fines with maximum head loss below acceptance criteria of 1.99 ft H20 when chemical precipitates formTest 5 Corresponding Plant Quantity Debris Loads211 lbsNUKON Fines542 lbsThermal Wrap Fines29 lbsGeneric Fiberglass43 lbsTemp-Mat206 lbsEpoxy Chips2269 lbsParticulate (modeled using silicon carbide)54.1 lbs of WCAP-16530 NaAlSi3O8 Head Loss Plot Test 5Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan7Non-Chemical Head LossChemical Effects Head Loss 2010 Testing Flow Rates2010 testing program added fibrous, particulate, and coating chip debris at scaled design plant flow rate of 5000 gpmDuring and after addition of chemical precipitates, flow was lowered to scaled flow rate of 2400 gpm (assumed 1 CS pump and 1 HPSI pump)Maximum recirculation flow rate at on-set of chemical effects could be as high as 2900 gpm (1 CS pump and 2 HPSI pumps)Flow sweeps performed at the end of each testTest flow rate varied from scaled plant values of ~600 gpm to ~6000 gpm, holding for 10 minutes at various incrementsCalvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan8 2010 Test 5 Flow Sweep DataCalvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan9Note Plot Shows Corresponding Plant Flow Rates used in Test Scaling Test 5 Head Loss Using Flow Sweep Data -PreliminaryDuring test, break-through occurred in debris bed as chemical precipitates were introducedIncrease maximum head loss recorded in Test 5 (1.21 feet) by ratio of flow rate increase from 2400 gpm to 2900 gpmThis is more conservative the scaling using ration of head loss increase from flow sweepsCalvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan10 Test 5 Flow Sweep Results -PreliminaryLinearly interpolate head loss 2900 gpm / 2400 gpm = 21% increase Maximum total head loss including clean strainer head loss:(1.21 ft
{{#Wiki_filter:Calvert Cliffs GSI-191 Program Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of Containment Response and Acceptable Head Loss Test Selection October 25, 2016
* 1.21) + 0.288 ft = 1.75 ftBelow acceptance criteria of 1.99 ft(limiting failure mode of CCNPP strainer is dearation)Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan11 Questions/ConcernsJointly Review Issues, Questions, and Concerns for Future CommunicationCalvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan12 Next StepsFinalize Update of CalculationsPresent Formal Risk-Informed GSI-191 Analysis and ResultsDesire Next Meeting 4Q 2016Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan13}}
 
Agenda
* Introductions
* Objectives for Meeting
* Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of Containment
    - Demonstrate that one CS pump will be secured prior to the onset of chemical precipitation
    - Containment pressure reduces to 2.8 psig prior to containment pool reducing to 140&deg;F
* Acceptable Strainer Head Loss Test
    - Identify chemical effects head loss test applicable simplified risk-informed approach
* Staff Questions & Concerns
* Schedule for Future Periodic Meetings 1  Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
CCNPP Attendees
* Jake Smith - Director Site Engineering
* John Haydin - M&CU Engineering Manager
* Andre Drake - Lead Responsible Engineer GSI-191
* Craig Sellers - Project Manager GSI-191
* Eric Federline - Project Support 2  Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of Containment
* Investigate Sump Temperature and Containment Pressure
  - Large Break LOCA Events
  - Cooldown Scenarios
* 2 Containment Spray Pump + 2 Containment Air Coolers - Slower Cooldown
* 2 Containment Spray Pumps + 4 Containment Air Coolers - Rapid Cooldown
* In all cases, pool temperature > 140&deg;F when containment pressure reduces to 2.8 psig
  - One Containment Spray Pump secured at containment pressure < 2.8 psig
  - Chemical precipitants remain soluble until pool temperature reduces to 140&deg;F
  - Cold Leg Break, Max SI, Max Instrument Uncertainty, pool = 138.8&deg;F @ 2.48 psig
* Cold Leg Break produces 10% to 20% less precipitate 3  Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis Results
* 2 CS pumps + 2 CACs
* 2 CS pumps + 4 CACs
  - Hot Leg Break                                  - Hot Leg Break
* Time to 140&deg;F = 108.3 hours
* Time to 140&deg;F = 86.1 hours
* Time to 2.8 psig = 47.2 hours
* Time to 2.8 psig = 23.6 hours
* Time to secure pump = 61.1 hours
* Time to secure pump = 62.5 hours
* Pressure @ 140&deg;F = 1.98 psig
* Pressure @ 140&deg;F = 1.95 psig
  - Cold Leg Break                                  - Cold Leg Break
* Time to 140&deg;F = 77.8 hours
* Time to 140&deg;F = 50.0 hours
* Time to 2.8 psig = 63.9 hours
* Time to 2.8 psig = 38.9 hours
* Time to secure pump = 13.9 hours
* Time to secure pump = 11.1 hours
* Pressure @ 140&deg;F = 2.58 psig
* Pressure @ 140&deg;F = 2.63 psig 4  Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
Thermal Hydraulic Response After CS Pump Trip
* Containment Spray primary heat removal for containment pool
* Pressure and Temperature increase after pump trip
* Pressure increase can auto restart CS pump
* EOPs being revised to prevent auto restart of CS pump 5.0                                                                                  170 4.5 160 4.0 Containment Pressure (psig) 3.5 Sump Water Temperature (F) 150 3.0 2.5                                                                                  140 2.0 CL Slower Cooldown                                                                CL Slower Cooldown 130 1.5 HL Slower Cooldown                                                                HL Slower Cooldown 1.0            CL Rapid Cooldown                                                                CL Rapid Cooldown 120 HL Rapid Cooldown                                                                HL Rapid Cooldown 0.5 0.0                                                                                  110 10                              100        1000                                      10                    100      1000 Time (hr)                                                                   Time (hr) 5                              Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
2010 Head Loss Testing - Test 5
* CCNPP performed a sequence of strainer head loss tests in 2010 with varying, scaled debris loads
* Test 5 is most appropriate test to use to define critical break size
        -Largest amount of fiber fines with maximum head loss below acceptance criteria of 1.99 ft H20 when chemical precipitates form
* Test 5 Corresponding Plant Quantity Debris Loads
        -211 lbs NUKON Fines
        -542 lbs Thermal Wrap Fines
        -29 lbs Generic Fiberglass
        -43 lbs Temp-Mat
        -206 lbs Epoxy Chips
        -2269 lbs Particulate (modeled using silicon carbide)
        -54.1 lbs of WCAP-16530 NaAlSi3O8 6    Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
Head Loss Plot - Test 5 Non-Chemical Head Loss Chemical Effects Head Loss 7 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
2010 Testing Flow Rates
* 2010 testing program added fibrous, particulate, and coating chip debris at scaled design plant flow rate of 5000 gpm
* During and after addition of chemical precipitates, flow was lowered to scaled flow rate of 2400 gpm (assumed 1 CS pump and 1 HPSI pump)
* Maximum recirculation flow rate at on-set of chemical effects could be as high as 2900 gpm (1 CS pump and 2 HPSI pumps)
* Flow sweeps performed at the end of each test
  - Test flow rate varied from scaled plant values of ~600 gpm to ~6000 gpm, holding for 10 minutes at various increments 8  Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
2010 Test 5 Flow Sweep Data Note - Plot Shows Corresponding Plant Flow Rates used in Test 9 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
Scaling Test 5 Head Loss Using Flow Sweep Data - Preliminary
* During test, break-through occurred in debris bed as chemical precipitates were introduced
* Increase maximum head loss recorded in Test 5 (1.21 feet) by ratio of flow rate increase from 2400 gpm to 2900 gpm
* This is more conservative the scaling using ration of head loss increase from flow sweeps 10  Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
Test 5 Flow Sweep Results - Preliminary
* Linearly interpolate head loss
  - 2900 gpm / 2400 gpm = 21% increase
* Maximum total head loss including clean strainer head loss:
(1.21 ft
* 1.21) + 0.288 ft = 1.75 ft
* Below acceptance criteria of 1.99 ft (limiting failure mode of CCNPP strainer is dearation) 11  Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
Questions/Concerns
* Jointly Review Issues, Questions, and Concerns for Future Communication 12  Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
 
Next Steps
* Finalize Update of Calculations
* Present Formal Risk-Informed GSI-191 Analysis and Results
* Desire Next Meeting - 4Q 2016 13  Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan}}

Latest revision as of 12:17, 4 December 2019

Presentation Slides from Public Meeting Calvert Cliffs GSI-191 Resolution Update
ML16307A490
Person / Time
Site: Calvert Cliffs  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 10/25/2016
From: Kimberly Green
Exelon Nuclear Generation Corp
To: Richard Guzman
Plant Licensing Branch 1
Guzman R
References
CAC MF8521, CAC MF8522
Download: ML16307A490 (14)
v • d • e


Text

Calvert Cliffs GSI-191 Program Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of Containment Response and Acceptable Head Loss Test Selection October 25, 2016

Agenda

  • Introductions
  • Objectives for Meeting
  • Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of Containment

- Demonstrate that one CS pump will be secured prior to the onset of chemical precipitation

- Containment pressure reduces to 2.8 psig prior to containment pool reducing to 140°F

  • Acceptable Strainer Head Loss Test

- Identify chemical effects head loss test applicable simplified risk-informed approach

  • Staff Questions & Concerns
  • Schedule for Future Periodic Meetings 1 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

CCNPP Attendees

  • Jake Smith - Director Site Engineering
  • John Haydin - M&CU Engineering Manager
  • Andre Drake - Lead Responsible Engineer GSI-191
  • Craig Sellers - Project Manager GSI-191
  • Eric Federline - Project Support 2 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of Containment

  • Investigate Sump Temperature and Containment Pressure

- Large Break LOCA Events

- Cooldown Scenarios

  • In all cases, pool temperature > 140°F when containment pressure reduces to 2.8 psig

- One Containment Spray Pump secured at containment pressure < 2.8 psig

- Chemical precipitants remain soluble until pool temperature reduces to 140°F

- Cold Leg Break, Max SI, Max Instrument Uncertainty, pool = 138.8°F @ 2.48 psig

  • Cold Leg Break produces 10% to 20% less precipitate 3 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

Thermal Hydraulic Analysis Results

- Hot Leg Break - Hot Leg Break

  • Time to 140°F = 108.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />
  • Time to 140°F = 86.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />
  • Time to 2.8 psig = 47.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />
  • Time to 2.8 psig = 23.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />
  • Time to secure pump = 61.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />
  • Time to secure pump = 62.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />
  • Pressure @ 140°F = 1.98 psig
  • Pressure @ 140°F = 1.95 psig

- Cold Leg Break - Cold Leg Break

  • Time to 140°F = 77.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />
  • Time to 140°F = 50.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />
  • Time to 2.8 psig = 63.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />
  • Time to 2.8 psig = 38.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />
  • Time to secure pump = 13.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />
  • Time to secure pump = 11.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />
  • Pressure @ 140°F = 2.58 psig
  • Pressure @ 140°F = 2.63 psig 4 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

Thermal Hydraulic Response After CS Pump Trip

  • Pressure and Temperature increase after pump trip
  • Pressure increase can auto restart CS pump
  • EOPs being revised to prevent auto restart of CS pump 5.0 170 4.5 160 4.0 Containment Pressure (psig) 3.5 Sump Water Temperature (F) 150 3.0 2.5 140 2.0 CL Slower Cooldown CL Slower Cooldown 130 1.5 HL Slower Cooldown HL Slower Cooldown 1.0 CL Rapid Cooldown CL Rapid Cooldown 120 HL Rapid Cooldown HL Rapid Cooldown 0.5 0.0 110 10 100 1000 10 100 1000 Time (hr) Time (hr) 5 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

2010 Head Loss Testing - Test 5

  • CCNPP performed a sequence of strainer head loss tests in 2010 with varying, scaled debris loads
  • Test 5 is most appropriate test to use to define critical break size

-Largest amount of fiber fines with maximum head loss below acceptance criteria of 1.99 ft H20 when chemical precipitates form

  • Test 5 Corresponding Plant Quantity Debris Loads

-211 lbs NUKON Fines

-542 lbs Thermal Wrap Fines

-29 lbs Generic Fiberglass

-43 lbs Temp-Mat

-206 lbs Epoxy Chips

-2269 lbs Particulate (modeled using silicon carbide)

-54.1 lbs of WCAP-16530 NaAlSi3O8 6 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

Head Loss Plot - Test 5 Non-Chemical Head Loss Chemical Effects Head Loss 7 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

2010 Testing Flow Rates

  • 2010 testing program added fibrous, particulate, and coating chip debris at scaled design plant flow rate of 5000 gpm
  • During and after addition of chemical precipitates, flow was lowered to scaled flow rate of 2400 gpm (assumed 1 CS pump and 1 HPSI pump)
  • Maximum recirculation flow rate at on-set of chemical effects could be as high as 2900 gpm (1 CS pump and 2 HPSI pumps)
  • Flow sweeps performed at the end of each test

- Test flow rate varied from scaled plant values of ~600 gpm to ~6000 gpm, holding for 10 minutes at various increments 8 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

2010 Test 5 Flow Sweep Data Note - Plot Shows Corresponding Plant Flow Rates used in Test 9 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

Scaling Test 5 Head Loss Using Flow Sweep Data - Preliminary

  • During test, break-through occurred in debris bed as chemical precipitates were introduced
  • Increase maximum head loss recorded in Test 5 (1.21 feet) by ratio of flow rate increase from 2400 gpm to 2900 gpm
  • This is more conservative the scaling using ration of head loss increase from flow sweeps 10 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

Test 5 Flow Sweep Results - Preliminary

  • Linearly interpolate head loss

- 2900 gpm / 2400 gpm = 21% increase

  • Maximum total head loss including clean strainer head loss:

(1.21 ft

  • 1.21) + 0.288 ft = 1.75 ft
  • Below acceptance criteria of 1.99 ft (limiting failure mode of CCNPP strainer is dearation) 11 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

Questions/Concerns

  • Jointly Review Issues, Questions, and Concerns for Future Communication 12 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan

Next Steps

  • Finalize Update of Calculations
  • Present Formal Risk-Informed GSI-191 Analysis and Results
  • Desire Next Meeting - 4Q 2016 13 Calvert Cliffs Option 2b Refined Closure Plan
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML16307A490&oldid=2229766"