ML15126A256

GSI-191 Program Chemical Effects Testing Strainer Headloss Testing NRC Public Meeting - November 6, 2014

ML15126A256
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/06/2015
From:	Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Martin R
References
Download: ML15126A256 (76)

Text

VOGTLE GSI-191 PROGRAM CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING STRAINER HEADLOSS TESTING NRC PUBLIC MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2014

AGENDA

• Introductions

• Objectives for Meeting

• *Discussion of Integrated Chemical Effects Test Plans

• *Discussion of Strainer Head Loss Test Plans

• Feedback on Documents Provided for Review Prior to Meeting

• Staff Questions and Concerns

• Presentation provides topic highlights only, more detailed information is contained in other documents provided provided.

2

SNC ATTENDEES

• Ken McElroy - Licensing Manager

• Ryan Joyce - Licensing

• Phillip Grissom - Program Manager GSI GSI-191 191

• Tim Littleton - Lead Engineer Vogtle Design

• Franchelli Febo - Vogtle Site Design

• Owen Scott - Risk Informed Engineering 3

OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING

• Provide an overview of Vogtle plans for future large scale chemical effects and strainer headloss testing, and receive any comments, concerns, or feedback from NRC staff

• Receive any NRC observations or feedback on documents provided for review prior to this meeting 4

VOGTLE BACKGROUND Vogtle Description

• Westinghouse 4-Loop PWR, 99% NUKON Insulation

• ~ 6 ft3 of Interam fire barrier

• GE Stacked Disk Strainers for ECCS and Containment Spray (4/unit)

• 765 ft2 per each of 2 ECCS trains, separate CS strainers (2)

• TSP Buffer Vogtle Status

• Strainer Head Loss and In-vessel issues remain open

• Previous chemical effects testing provided very promising results, but not accepted by NRC

• Vogtle elected to follow Option 2B (risk-informed resolution) of SECY-12-0093,, as being g piloted p by y STP 5

DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO MEETING

• Strainer Headloss

• SNCV083-PR-05, Rev 0, Risk-Informed Head Loss Test Strategy, October 2014

• Chemical Effects

• CHLE-SNC-001, Rev. 2, Bench Test Results for Series 1000 Tests for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, September 2013

• CHLE-SNC-007, C S C 00 Rev. 2 2, Bench h Test Results l ffor SSeries i 3000 Tests for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, January 2014

• CHLE-SNC-008, Rev. 3, Column Chemical Head Loss E

Experimental i t lP Procedures d anddAAcceptance t C it i M Criteria, March h

2014

• CHLE-SNC-020, Rev 0, Test Plan-Vogtle Risk Informed GSI-191 CHLE Test T t T6, T6 T7 and d T8 T8, October O t b 2014 6

INTEGRATED CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO ENERCON ALION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8)

• Similar to STP Test T2, but with Vogtle Specifics

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Based on Double Ended Guillotine Break of the 29 29 Hot Leg Piping on Loop 4 of the RCS (Weld# 11201-004-6-RB)

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds (T6)

• Forced Precipitation p Tank Test w/Debris Beds ((T7))

8

30-DAY INTEGRATED TANK TEST (T8)

• Objective:

• Determine and characterize chemical precipitates generated during a simulated LOCA event

• Investigate effects of potential chemical products on head loss

• Generate G test results l ffor a simulated i l dbbreak k case to compare with the chemical effects model

• Based on Double Ended Guillotine Break of the 29 Hot Leg Piping g on Loop 4 of the RCS (Weld#

( 11201-004-6-RB))

• Includes:

• CHLE Corrosion tank

• Prototypical Vogtle Water Chemistry

• Corrosion and Ancillary Materials

• Vertical Column System

• Multi-Particulate Debris Beds 9

SUMMARY

OF PREVIOUS TESTING (STP) ( )

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Corrosion - Al - Al scaffold - Al, GS, Zn Al GS - Al coupons - Al scaffold materials scaffolding - Fiberglass coupons - Fiberglass - Fiberglass

- Fiberglass - GS, Zn - Fiberglass - GS, Zn coupons - Concrete coupons

- Concrete - Concrete Avg Vel (ft/s) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 pH 7.22 7.32 7.22 7.22 7.25 Temperature MB-LOCA LB-LOCA Non- Non- LB-LOCA profile Prototypical Prototypical Testing Per. 30-day 30-day 10-day 10-day 10-day Bed prep. NEI NEI Blend & NEI Blend & NEI Blender 10

SUMMARY

OF PROPOSED TESTING (SNC) ( )

T6 T7 T8 Corrosion - Al, GS, Cu, CS - - Al, GS coupons - Al, GS, Cu, CS -

materials Fiberglass - Fiberglass Fiberglass

- Concrete - Concrete - Concrete

- MAP, Interam, Dirt - IOZ - MAP, Interam, Dirt

- Epoxy, IOZ - Epoxy, IOZ Velocity (ft/s) 0 013 0.013 0 013 0.013 0 013 0.013 Target pH 7.2 7.2 7.2 Temperature Modified LB-LOCA Non-Prototypical Modified LB-LOCA profile fil Testing period 30-day 10-day 30-day Bed typeyp None Multi-Constituent Multi-Constituent Particulate Particulate 11

TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T8 12

TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T8

• T6/T8 Temperature Profile (initial hour)

• Best Estimate case is below 185°F within ~10 min

• T6/T8 materials are immediately submerged and exposed to sprays

• No credit taken for the time to activate sprays and fill the sump

• No credit taken for thermal lag of materials in containment 13

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30-Day 30 Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8)

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical yp Water C Chemistryy for Vogtle g During g LOCA OC

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 14

CHLE - VERTICAL HEAD LOSS TESTING UNM Testing Facility Previous Testing (NEI and Blender Beds)

Head Loss Results

• Debris Beds with Acrylic Particulates o Head loss - Repeatability o Head loss - Stability & variability o Bed sensitivity, Hysteresis & detectability

• Debris D bi B Beds d with ith E Epoxy Particulates P ti l t 15

CHLE UNM Testing Facility 16

CHLE VERTICAL HEAD LOSS MODULES 17

CHLE PREVIOUS TESTING NEI - Beds CHLE-010 CHLE 010 40 mg/L of WCAP Blender Bed 6 mg/L of WCAP

CHLE Results: Repeatability Test #1, 2, and 3 - Paint/Fiber (40/20) 60 Test 1 (Pav = 5.71 H2O"))

Test 2 (Pav = 5.69 H2O")

Test 3 (Pav = 5.97 H2O")

50 40 Head Loss s, P (H2O")

Approach Velocity (from 0.05 to 0.013 ft/s) 30 20 Acrylic P ti l t SEM Particulate 10 Pav = 5.79 (H2O")

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Time (hr) 19

CHLE Results: Stability and Variability Test #3 - Paint/Fiber (40/20) -

Test #1, 2, and 3 - Paint/Fiber (40/20) Long term test 10 60 0.10 Column #1 Approach Velocity Column #2 Head Loss 9 50 Column #3

+ 5% 0.08 8

Head d Loss, P (H2O")

40 Head Loss, P (H2O"")

7After Adding - 5% Pav=7.69 Approach Velocity 0.06 Latent Debris/Dirt 30 (from 0.0495 to 0.013 ft/s) 6 5 + 7% Pav=4.489 20 Pav = 5.98 (H2O") - After 5 days 0.04 Pav = 5.97 (H2O") - After 11 hrs 4 10 Before Addingg - 7% 0.02 Latent Debris/Dirt 3 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 Time (Day) 0 5 10 0 15 5 20 0

Time (hr) 20

CHLE Results: Sensitivity, Hysteresis &

Chemical Detectability 7 0.020 20 Pav= 6.859 Batch 2- Ca3(P PO4)2 Batch 3- AlOOH Batch 1- Ca3(P PO4)2 Batch 3- Ca3(P PO4)2 Pav= 6.124 Batch 1- AlO OOH Batch 2- AlO OOH Pav= 5.98 (H2O O"))

18 6

16 Pav= 5.297 Head Loss Approacch Velocity ((ft/s) 5 Head L oss, P (H 2 O")

Head Loss, P (H2O O")

14 0 016 0.016 P = 15.78 8"

Pav= 4.59 4 59 P = 14.52" P = 14.6" P = 15.27" 12 4 Pav= 3.942 P = 13.15"

= 5.12" AV = 0.014 10 Pav= 3.29 AV = 0.013 Conv C

3 8 P = 10.56" P

AV = 0.013 ft/s AV = 0.012 0.012 6 2

AV = 0.011 4 Appro AV = 0.010 0 010 ach 2 0 086 ft/s 0.086 1 Velocit AV = 0.009 y 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 0.008 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (hr)

Time (Day) 21

CHLE - Results: Detectability with Epoxy 0 05 0.05 1.0 14 Medium - Thick Beds with Epoxy Stability C Criteria (%)

0.8 0.6 04%

0.4 0.4 12 0.04 Apprroach Velocity (ft/s) 0.2 He ead Loss (H H2O")

0 0 50 100 150 200 10 Time (hr) 0.03 Fiber = 20 g Ca3(PO4)2 E

Epoxy = 36 g SEM - IOZ SEM - Epoxy AlOOH AlOOH 8

IOZ = 2 g 0.02 Latent Debris/Dirt = 2 g AV =0.0128 0 0128 ft/s ft/

6 0.01 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Time (hr) 22

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30 30-Day Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8)

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 23

PROTOTYPICAL CHEMICALS: CHLE TANK CHLE Tank Vogtle Quantity Chemical Type Quantity Significance (mM)

(g)

H3BO3 221.4 15546 Initial Pool Chemistry LiOH 0.0504 1.372 HCl 2.39 99 Radiolysis Generated HNO3 0.0873 6.2 Chemicals Containment TSP 5.83 2582 Buffering Agent 24

CHEMICAL ADDITION PROTOCOLS

• Initial Pool Chemistry

• Boric Acid

• Lithium Hydroxide ([Li]=0.35 mg/L)

• TSP metered in continuously during first two hours of test to desired final concentration

• Radiolysis generated materials added throughout test

• Batch addition at 1, 2, 5, 10, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> initially

• Continued additions periodically thereafter 25

PROTOTYPICAL MATERIALS:

CHLE TANK (1 OF 2) 300 gal CHLE Material Type Vogtle Quantity Test Quantity*

Aluminum (submerged) 54 ft2 0.026 ft2 (3.7 in2)

Aluminum (exposed to spray) 4,003 ft2 1.91 ft2 Galvanized Steel (submerged) 19,144 ft2 9.13 ft2 Galvanized Steel (exposed to 191,234 ft2 91.2 ft2 spray))

Copper (submerged) 149.8 ft2 0.0715 ft2 (10.3 in2)

Fire Extinguisher g Dry y Chemical

- Monoammonium phosphate 357 lbm 0.170 lbm (77.2 g)

(MAP)

Interam' E-54C ((submerged) g ) 4.448 ft3 2.12 x10-3 ft3 ((3.67 in3) 26

PROTOTYPICAL MATERIALS:

CHLE TANK (2 OF 2) 300 gal CHLE Material Type Vogtle Quantity Test Quantity*

Carbon Steel (submerged) 548.0 ft2 0.261 ft2 (37.6 in2)

Carbon Steel (exposed to 367.5 ft2 0.175 ft2 (25.2 in2) spray)

Concrete (submerged) 2,092 ft2 0.998 ft2 (144 in2)

IOZ Coatings Zinc Filler 50 lbm 0.024 lbm (11 g)

(submerged)

Epoxy Coatings (submerged) 2,785 lbm 1.33 lbm (603 g)

Latent Dirt/Dust (submerged) 51 lbm 0.024 lbm (11 g)

Fiberglass (submerged) 2,552 ft3 1.218 ft3 27

MATERIAL ADDITION PROTOCOLS

• Submerged metal coupons

• Arranged in a submergible rack system within tank

• Unsubmerged metal coupons

• Secured individually i i i to a rack system withini i tank

• Loose materials

• Concrete affixed to a submerged g coupon p rack

• Interam, MAP, latent dirt/dust, fiberglass and IOZ* will be loosely packed in wire mesh bags submerged front of one of the tank headers

• Total inventory of IOZ may be added to the vertical columns instead of to the tank if it is determined to be too fine to contain in a mesh bag 28

COUPON RACKS 29

MATERIAL BAGS 30

PROTOTYPICAL MATERIALS:

DEBRIS BEDS 300 gal CHLE Quantity per Column Material Type Test Quantity Quantity* (g)

IOZ Coatings 0.014 lbm (6.4 g) 2.13 Zinc Filler Epoxy Coatings 0.236 lbm (107.2 g) 35.74 Latent Dirt/Dust 0.014 lbm (6.4 g) 2.13 Fiberglass 0.055 ft3 (60 g) 20

• Debris Bed Materials are loaded into columns before connection to tank solution with loaded tank materials

• Connection between tank and column system occurs once beds reach criteria for stability t bilit 31

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30 30-Day Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical yp Water Chemistryy Tank Test w/o

/ Debris Beds

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 32

BENCH SCALE TESTS: ALUMINUM

• Objectives

• Time-Averaged Corrosion due to Variations in pH, Temperature, Ph Phosphate h t (TSP)

• Corrosion and release rates over a range of temperature and pH values

• Comparison with WCAP correlation for Al

• Effects on Al Corrosion due to Other Corrosion Materials Present During LOCA

• Zinc, Zinc Copper, Copper Iron, Iron Chlorine 33

BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM

• Time Time-averaged averaged corrosion rate reached maximum within 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />

• Passivation P i ti off aluminum l i occurred d within ithi 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (stabilized rate of release)

• Direct correlation between corrosion rate and higher temperature/pH values (next two figures) 34

BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM 12 Aluminum c concentratio on (mg/L) 10 8

6 4

2 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (hr)

Series 1100, 1100 85degrC Series 1500, 1500 70degrC Series 1600, 1600 55degrC 35

BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM 40 35 Aluminum c A concentratio on (mg/L) 30 25 20 15 10 5

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (hr)

S i 1400 Series H7 1400, pH 84 7.84 S i 1100 Series H7 1100, pH 34 7.34 S i 1300 Series H6 1300, pH 84 6.84 36

BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM

• Presence of zinc inhibits the corrosion of aluminum

• Presence of copper, copper chloride and iron ions have little appreciable effect on corrosion of aluminum

• 24-hour release of aluminum is reduced by a factor of 2-3 2 3 compared to the WCAP-16530 equations by including passivation in the TSP environment i t 37

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30 30-Day Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical yp Water Chemistry y Tank Test w/o Debris Beds (T6)

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 38

ADDITIONAL CE TANK TESTS

• 30-Day 30 Day Recirculatory Tank Test (T6)

• Objective:

• Investigate i iisolated effects ff off water chemistry on plant materials during a LOCA

• No vertical column system or debris beds

• Prototypical Vogtle Water Chemistry

• Temperature Profile Identical to T8 39

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30-Day y Integrated g Tank Test w/Debris

/ Bed System y

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds

• Forced F dP Precipitation i it ti Tank T k TestT t w/Debris Beds (T7) 40

ADDITIONAL CE TANK TESTS

• 10-Day Integrated Tank Test (T7)

• Objective:

• Investigate material corrosion and any resulting effects ff t on head h d lossl under d forced f d precipitation i it ti conditions using Vogtle quantities for boron, TSP, concrete, galvanized steel, and zinc

• Corrosion Tank

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• Excess aluminum submerged in CHLE Tank (parallel to T3 test for STP)

• Different Temperature Profile than T6/T8 41

TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T7 42

NEXT STEPSSTEPS

• Vertical Column Head Loss

• Explore effects of chemical surrogates on measured head loss for various fiber/particulate ratios (thin, medium, and thick debris beds)

• Tank T k Tests T t

• Perform T6, T7, T8 tests

• Bench Scale Tests

• Zinc

• Calcium 43

REFERENCES

• CHLE CHLE-SNC-001 SNC 001 (Bench Tests: Aluminum)

• CHLE-SNC-007 (Bench Tests: Aluminum w/other metals))

• CHLE-SNC-008 (HL Operating Procedure)

• CHLE-SNC-020 (Test Plan for T6, T7 & T8) 44

STRAINER HEAD LOSS TEST PLAN 45

RISK-INFORMED CONVENTIONAL HEAD LOSS TEST STRATEGY

• Enercon Services, Services Inc.

Inc

• Tim Sande

• Kip Walker

• Alden Research Laboratory

• Ludwig Haber 46

HEAD LOSS MODEL

• Why is a head loss model necessary?

• Thousands of break scenarios

• Each with unique conditions (break flow rate, sump water level, debris loads, etc.)

• Parameters that changeg with time

• It is not practical to conduct a head loss test for every scenario

• Approaches for developing a risk-informed head loss model

• Correlation approach has some advantages, but very difficult to implement

• Rule-based approach is focused on prototypical conditions for a given plant, which makes it more practical

• Hybrid approach uses rule-based head loss data to create an empirical p correlation

• An overall head loss test strategy is presented which includes some Vogtle-specific implementation information. Other plants are evaluating and may use all or parts of this strategy.

47

HYPOTHETICAL TEST RESULTS

= particulate/fiber ratio 48

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Conservatisms Conservatisms required to limit test scope

• Reduce all particulate types to one bounding surrogate

• Reduce all fiber types to one bounding surrogate

• Reduce all water chemistries to one bounding chemistry

• Notes:

• Surrogate properties include the debris type, type size distribution, density, etc.

• Bounding refers to a parameter value that maximizes head loss within the range of plant plant-specific specific conditions

• Test details will be fully developed in a plant-specific test plan 49

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Definition of testing limits based on plant plant-specific specific conditions

• Maximum fiber quantity

• Maximum particulate quantity

• Maximum particulate to fiber ratio (max )

• Use of small-scale testing

• If a small-scale version of the prototype strainer can be shown to provide the same head loss results as a large-scale strainer test program will utilize small-scale strainer, small scale head loss values to build model

• Reduced cost and schedule would allow more data to be gathered 50

OVERVIEW OF TEST PROGRAM

• Test Series

• Large-scale test with thin-bed protocol

• Large-scale test with full-load protocol

• Validation of small-scale testing

• Small-scale sensitivity tests

• Small-scale tests with full-load protocol

• Need to determine minimum fiber and maximum particulate quantity (i.e.,

(i e maximum ) required to generate significant conventional debris head loss

• Significant head loss subjectively defined as 1.5 ft

• Vogtle Vogtless NPSH margin ranges from 10 ft to over 40 ft, depending on pool temperature and containment pressure

• Head loss below 1.5 ft is not likely to cause failures under most circumstances even if future chemical effects testing results in significant head loss 51

LARGE-SCALE TEST WITH THIN-BED PROTOCOL

• Purpose

• Identify minimum fiber load required to develop significant conventional head loss (maximum )

• Obtain prototypical head loss data for use in validating the small-scale strainer

• Measure bounding strainer head loss for thin-bed conditions

• Test Protocol

• Use buffered and borated water at 120 °F

• Perform flow sweepp to measure clean strainer head loss

• Add prototypical mixture of particulate debris (max quantities)

• Batch in prototypical mixture of fiber debris (one type at Vogtle) in small increments (1/32nd inch equivalent bed thickness)

• Measure stable head loss and perform flow sweep between each batch

• Continue adding fiber until a head loss of 1.5 ft is observed

• Perform temperature sweep

• Batch in chemical precipitates (quantity and form to be determined by separate analysis/testing) 52

LARGE-SCALE TEST WITH FULL-LOAD PROTOCOL

• Purpose

• Identify fiber quantity required to fill the interstitial volume

• Obtain prototypical head loss data for use in validating the small-scale strainer

• Measure bounding g strainer head loss for full-load conditions

• Test Protocol

• Use buffered and borated water at 120 °F

• Perform flow sweep to measure clean strainer head loss

• Utilize value corresponding to bounding fiber debris quantity with same particulate load used for large-scale thin-bed test

• Batch in prototypical mixture of fiber and particulate debris maintaining the desired value for each batch

• Measure stable head loss and perform flow sweep between each batch

• Repeat batches and flow sweeps until full fiber and particulate load has been added

• Perform temperature sweep

• Batch in chemical precipitates (quantity and form to be determined by separate analysis/testing) 53

VALIDATION OF SMALL-SCALE TESTING

• Design small small-scale scale strainer using proven scaling techniques

• Test small-scale strainer under conditions similar to large-scale testing (both thin-bed and full-load protocols)

• Adjust strainer or tank design as necessary to appropriately match large-scale test results g cannot be validated due

• Note: If small-scale testing to competing scaling factors, the remaining tests could be performed using the large-scale strainer 54

SMALL-SCALE SENSITIVITY TESTS

• Purpose

• Reduce all particulate types to a single bounding surrogate

• Reduce all fiber types to a single bounding surrogate (Vogtle only has one fiber type)

• Reduce range of prototypical water chemistries to a single bounding chemistry

• Tests will be run with a variety of representative parameters to identify the parameters for use in remaining tests

• Gather data for head loss caused by y various types yp of chemical surrogates 55

SMALL-SCALE TESTS WITH FULL-LOAD PROTOCOL

• Purpose of these tests are to gather data necessary to build the head loss model g

• Test Protocol will be similar to large-scale, full-load test except that the small-scale tests will be conducted using the bounding surrogates for fiber, particulate and water chemistry particulate,

• Perform series of tests (e.g., 9 tests) at different values with equivalent fiber batch sizes for each test 56

RULE-BASED IMPLEMENTATION 57

OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

• Select head loss value for bounding fiber quantity and value p

• Interpolate between two fiber values and use bounding value

• Interpolate between all four points 58

VOGTLE DEBRIS GENERATION

• Debris quantities vary significantly for different weld locations and break sizes

• Max Fiber (11201-004-6-RB, Hot leg at base of SG)

• Nukon: 2,235 ft3

• Latent fiber: 4 ft3

• Total: 2,239 ft3

• Max Particulate (11201-008-4-RB, (11201 008 4 RB Crossover leg)

• Interam: 183 lbm

• Qualified epoxy: 188 lbm

• Qualified IOZ: 61 lbm

• Unqualified epoxy: 2,602 lbm

• Unqualified IOZ: 25 lbm

• Unqualified alkyd: 32 lbm

• RCS Crud: 23 lbm

• Latent dirt/dust: 51 lbm 59

• Total: 3,165 lbm

VOGTLE DEBRIS TRANSPORT

• Debris transport varies significantly depending on several parameters

• Break location (compartment)

• Debris size distribution

• Number of pumps/trains in operation

• Whether containment sprays are activated

• Location of unqualified coatings

• Time when containment sprays are secured

• F il Failure ti time ffor unqualified lifi d coatings ti

• ECCS/CSS pump flow rates

• Recirculation pool water level 60

VOGTLE FIBER TRANSPORT FRACTIONS TO ONE RHR STRAINER*

Debris Size 1 Train w/ 2 Train w/ 1 Train 2 Train Type Spray Spray w/out w/out Spray Spray Nukon u o Fines es 58% 29%

9% 23%

3% 12%

Small 48% 24% 5% 2%

Large 6% 3% 7% 4%

I t t Intact 0% 0% 0% 0%

Latent Fines 58% 29% 28% 14%

• Preliminary values 61

VOGTLE PARTICULATE TRANSPORT FRACTIONS TO ONE RHR STRAINER*

Debris Type Size 1 Train w/ 2 Train w/ 1 Train w/out 2 Train w/out Spray Spray Spray Spray Unqualified Epoxy Fines 58% 29% 44% 22%

Fine Chips 0% 0% 0% 0%

Small Chips 0% 0% 0% 0%

Large Chips 0% 0% 0% 0%

Curled Chips 58% 29% 5% 7%

Unqualified IOZ Fines 58% 29% 12% 6%

U Unqualified lifi d Alkyd Alk d Fi Fines 58% 29% 100% 50%

Interam Fines 58% 29% 23% 12%

Qualified Epoxy Fines 58% 29% 23% 12%

Qualified IOZ Fines 58% 29% 23% 12%

Latent dirt/dust Fines 58% 29% 28% 14%

RCS Crud Fines 58% 29% 23% 12%

• Preliminary values 62

DEBRIS TRANSPORT W/O CONTAINMENT SPRAYS

• Blowdown transport fractions are not changed

• Distribution of debris prior to recirculation remains unchangedg

• 5% of fines assumed to be washed down due to condensation in containment 63

VOGTLE FIBER TRANSPORT TO ONE RHR STRAINER, 1 TRAIN W/SPRAY*

Debris Type Size DG Quantity Transport Quantity (ft3) Fraction (ft3)

Nukon Fines 290.5 58% 168.5 Small 1 001 1 1,001.1 48% 480 5 480.5 Large 453.6 6% 27.2 Intact 489.4 0% 0.0 Total 2,234.7 676.3 Latent Fines 3.8 58% 2.2 Total 2,238.5

, 678.4

• Preliminary values 64

VOGTLE PARTICULATE TRANSPORT TO ONE RHR STRAINER, 1 TRAIN W/SPRAY*

Debris Type Size DG Quantity (lbm) Transport Fraction Quantity (lbm)

Unqualified Epoxy Fines 319.5 58% 185.3 Fine Chips 968.7 0% 0.0 Small Chips 245.4 0% 0.0 L

Large Chips Chi 534 2 534.2 0% 00 0.0 Curled Chips 534.2 58% 309.8 Total 2,602.0 495.2 q

Unqualified IOZ Fines 25.0 58%

% 14.5 Unqualified Alkyd Fines 32.0 58% 18.6 Interam Fines 182.9 58% 106.1 Qualified Epoxy Fines 187.6 58% 108.8 Qualified IOZ Fines 61.3 58% 35.6 Latent dirt/dust Fines 51.0 58% 29.6 RCS Crud Fines 23.0 58% 13.3 Total 3 164 8 3,164.8 821 6 821.6

• Preliminary values 65

HYPOTHETICAL TEST RESULTS WITH TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS 66

SUMMARY

• A comprehensive test program is necessary to quantify head loss for thousands of break scenarios pp

• The rule based approach is a more p practical option p

than a full correlation or test for every break scenario

• Simplifications of fiber type, type particulate surrogate, surrogate and water chemistry are necessary to develop a practical test matrix

• Small-scale testing may be utilized to gather a majority of the data 67

CHEMICAL EFFECTS BACKUP SLIDES 68

CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW

• 30-Day y Integrated g Tank Test w/Debris

/ Bed System y ((T8))

• Vertical Column Head Loss System

• CHLE Corrosion Tank

• Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA

• Additional Chemical Effects Testing

• Bench Scale Tests

• Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds

• Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 69

CHLE TROUBLESHOOTING APPROACH Modifications to CHLE Tank & Column System

1. Single flow header for each column

2. Unified suction and discharge plumbing arrangement

3. Improved flow distribution sparger

4. Develop p a new p procedure for debris bed preparation and loading [CHLE-SNC-008]

Stable head loss R

Repeatable t bl h head d lloss ((single i l column) l )

Minimum variability 70 Chemical detection

CHLE TANK AND COLUMN MODIFICATIONS Upper stainless steel section CHLE System V6 Polycarbonate section Before Lower stainless steel section Modifications Column Head Loss Module C1 C2 C3 Spray system C1-V6 C2-V6 C3-V6 FM CHLE System CHLE Tank C1-V5 C2-V5 C3-V5 C1-V2 To Drain C2-V2 To Drain C3-V2 To Drain After V7 V8 V13 C1-V1 C1 V3 C1-V3 C1-V4 C2-V1 C2 V1 C2 V3 C2-V3 C2-V4 C3 V1 C3-V1 C3 V3 C3-V3 C3-V4 Modifications V10 V9 V11 V12 V5 V6 V4 V3 To Drain V1 V2 V14 (Sampling) 71

ALUMINUM CORRELATION DATA: BEST FIT 40 Predicted d concentra ation (mg/L L) 30 20 10 0

0 10 20 30 40 Measured concentration (mg/L) 72

STRAINER HEADLOSS BACKUP SLIDES 73

INTRODUCTION

• 35 Years of History and Lessons Learned

• USI A-43 (opened in 1979)

• Head loss testing/correlations for fiber and RMI (no particulate)

• Resolved without major plant modifications

• Bulletins 93-02 and 96-03

• Incident at Barsebck in 1992 and similar events at Perry and Limerick showed that mixtures of fiber and particulate can cause higher head loss than previously evaluated

• BWR research and plant-specific evaluations led to strainer replacements at all UU.S.

S BWRs

• Issue resolved in early 2000s.

74

INTRODUCTION

• 35 Years of History and Lessons Learned Learned, Cont Cont.

• GSI-191 and GL 2004-02

• Based on BWR concerns, GSI-191 was opened in 1996 to address dd ECCS strainer t i performance f for f PWRs PWR

• Chemical effects identified as an additional contributor to strainer head loss

• PWR research and plant plant-specific specific evaluations led to strainer replacements at all U.S. PWRs

• Complexities in evaluations have delayed closure for most pa s plants

• NRC head loss guidance issued in March 2008 75

3M INTERAM E-50 SERIES

• MSDS and observations indicate that it is 30% fiber and 70% particulate

• Non-QA testing g with NEI fiber preparation p p p protocol indicates that it is more robust than Temp-Mat

• 11.7D ZOI can be justified

• Testing indicates that 50% fines and 50% small pieces would be conservative (i.e.. smaller than actual)

• Transport metrics can be developed based on density and particle sizes, similar to other types of debris 76