ML20138D944

Summary of 970324 Meeting W/Licensee in Rockville,Md Re ECCS suction-strainer Program for Perry Npp,Unit 1.List of Attendees & Viewgraphs Encl

ML20138D944
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	04/23/1997
From:	Hopkins J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9705010309
Download: ML20138D944 (86)

Text

.

,5 1

April 23, 1997

/

l LICENSEE: THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY FACILITY:

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON MARCH 24, 1997, TO DISCUSS THE PERRY EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM (ECCS) SUCTION-STRAINER PROGRAM On March 24, 1997, NRC staff members met at Rockville, Maryland, with representatives of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company to discuss its ECCS suction-strainer program for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1.

A list of attendees is included as Enclosure 1.

The proposed strainer design would have an area of slightly less than 5,000 square feet with a resultant low approach velocity. The hole area would be 32 percent of the total area. The total weight of the strainer is approximately 210,000 lbs.

The strainer would be constructed of 88 modules with each module having over 100 welds.

Welds will be visually inspected and, on a sampling basis, checked by liquid penetrant examination.

The strainer design has some horizontal restraints, but is freestanding in the vertical direction.

The acoustic methodology used to determine loads on the strainer was described by a consultant to the licensee.

The licensee stated that they had performed a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation of the acoustic methodology, and found the methodology acceptable for this application. The NRC staff stated that they would think about the acoustic methodology application some more, and if they had significant concerns, the staff would inform the licensee of them.

j Copies of view-graphs used at the meeting are included as Enclosure 2.

Original signed by:

(h Jon B. Hopkins, Sr. Project Manager

]

Project Directorate III-3 1

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-440

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls:

See next page DISTRIBUTION:

E-Mail w/ encl 1:

MMarshall (MXM2)

SCollins (SJCl)

EJordan (JKR) i Hard Copy w/encln FMiraglia (FJM)

JCaldwell (JLCl)

\\

Docket File AThadani (ACT)

GMarcus (GHM)

J PUBLIC RZimmerman (RPZ)

BMcCabe (BCM)

!p PD3-3 R/F JRoe (JWR)

JKudrick (JAKl)

OGC EAdensam (EGAl)

RElliott (RBE)

ACRS Dross (SAM)

KKavanagh (KAK) i 01'0093 AD'Angelo (TXD)

ASerkiz (AWS) l SH3%lEQ DOCUMENT NAME:

G:\\ PERRY \\lMMES.MfS To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure

'N' = No copy l

OFFICE PDIII-3:J Al PDIII-3:PM.

6 NAME CBoyle T JHopkins W

l DATE 04/ O /973 04/ M/97 /

9705010309 970423 FICIAL RECORD COPY PDR ADOCK 05000440 P

PDR

(

e 9

April 23, 1997 LICENSEE: THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY l

FACILITY:

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON MARCH 24, 1997, TO DISCUSS THE PERRY EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM (ECCS) SUCTION-STRAINER PROGRAM l

On March 24, 1997, NRC staff members met at Rockville, Maryland, with j.

representatives of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company to discuss its ECCS suction-strainer program for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1.

A i

list of attendees is included as Enclosure 1.

The. proposed strainer design would have an area of slightly less than 5,000 square feet with a resultant low approach velocity.

The hole area would be 32

)

percent of the total area.

The total weight of the strainer is approximately i

210,000 lbs.

The strainer would be constructed of 88 modules with each module having over 100 welds. Welds will be visually inspected and, on a sampling l

basis, checked by. liquid penetrant examination.

The. strainer design has some horizontal restraints, but is freestanding in the vertical direction.

The acoustic methodology used to determine loads on the strainer was described by a consultant to the licensee.

The licensee stated that they had performed a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation of the acoustic methodology, i

and'found the methodology acceptable for this application. The NRC staff stated that they would think about the acoustic methodology application some more, and if they had significant concerns, the staff would inform the licensee of them.

Copies of view-graphs used at the meeting are included as Enclosure 2.

Original signed by:

I Jon B. Hopkins, Sr. Project Manager 1

Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-440

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encis:

See next page DISTRIBUTION:

E-Mail w/ enc 1 1:

MMarshall (MXM2)

SCollins (SJC1)

EJordan (JKR)

Hard Coov w/encls:

FMiraglia (FJM)

JCaldwell (JLC1)

Docket File AThadani (ACT)

GMarcus (GHM)

PUBLIC RZimmerman (RPZ)

BMcCabe (BCM)

PD3-3 R/F JRoe (JWR)

JKudrick (JAK1)

OGC EAdensam (EGA1)

RElliott (RBE)

ACRS Dross (SAM)

KKavanagh (KAK)

AD'Angelo (TXD)

ASerkiz (AWS)

DOCUMENT NAME:

G:\\ PERRY \\ MERGER.MTS l

To receive a copy of this document. indicate in the bos: "C" = Copy without attachrnent/ enclosure "E" = Copy with attachtnent/ enclosure I

'N' = No copy j

OFFICE PDIII-3:1Y Af PDIII-3:PM. ] 8, l

I NAME CBoyle #F JHopkins N/

l DATE 04/.43/9F 04/ M /97 [

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

L,

[g>R 780 k

l UNITED STATES l

7 j

NUCLEAR REi2ULATORY COMMISSION i

WASHINGTON,' D.C. N4001 4

0 4*****9 April 23, 1997 LICENSEE: THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY FACILITY: PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON MARCH 24, 1997, TO DISCUSS THE PERRY EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM (ECCS) SUCTION-STRAINER PROGRAM On March 24, 1997, NRC staff members met at Rockville, Maryland, with representatives of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company to discuss its ECCS suction-strainer program for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1.

A l

list of attendees is included as Enclosure 1.

l The proposed strainer design would have an area of slightly less than 5,000 square feet with a resultant loe approach velocity. The hole area would be 32 percent of the total area. The total weight of the strainer is approximately 210,000 lbs. The strainer would be constructed of 88 modules with each module

)

having over 100 welds. Welds will be visually inspected and, on a sampling l

basis, checked by liquid penetrant examination.

l l

The strainer design has some horizontal restraints, but is freestanding in the I

vertical direction.

The acoustic methodology used to determine loads on the strainer was described by a consultant to the licensee. The licensee stated l

that they had performed a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation of the acoustic methodology, I

and found the methodology acceptable for this application.

The NRC staff I

stated that they would think about the acoustic methodology application some more, and if they had significant concerns, the staff would inform the i

licensee of them.

Copies of view-graphs used at the meeting are included as Enclosure 2.

o I<

Jon B. Hopkins, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

Docket No. 50-440

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: See next page l

I l

Centerior Service Company Perry Nuclear Power Plant l

Unit Nos. I and 2 cc:

Mayor, Village of Perry l

Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

4203 Har)er Street Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Perry, Olio 44081 l

2300 N Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20037 Donna Owens., Director Ohio Department of Commerce i

Mary E. O'Reilly Division of Industrial Compliance l

Centerior Energy Corporation Bureau of Operations & Maintenance 300 Madison Avenue 6606 Tussing Road Toledo, Ohio 43652 P.O. Box 4009

~

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-9009 Resident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mayor, Village of North Perry Parmly at Center Road North Perry Village Hall Perry, Ohio 44081 4778 Lockwood Road North Perry Village, Ohio 44081 Regional Administrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney General 801 Warrenville Road Department of Attorney General Lisle, Illinois 60532-4531 30 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Lake County Prosecutor Lake County Administration Bldg.

Radiological Health Program 105 Main Street Ohio Department of Health Painesville, Ohio 44077 P.O. Box 118 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0118 Sue Hiatt 0CRE Interim Representative Ohio Environmental Protection 8275 Munson Agency Mentor, Ohio 44060 DERR--Compliance Unit ATTN:

Mr. Zack A. Clayton Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

P.O. Box 1049 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Chairman Ashtabula County Prosecutor Perry Township Board of Trustees 25 West Jefferson Street 3750 Center Rd., Box 65 Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Perry, Ohio 44081 Henry L. Hegrat State of Ohio Regulatory Affairs Manager Public Utilities Commission Cleveland Electric 111uminating Co.

East Broad Street Perry Nuclear Power Plant Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 P. O. Box 97, A210 Perry, Ohio 44081 Richard D. Brandt, Plant Manager Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

James R. Williams Perry Nuclear Power Plant Chief of Staff P.O. Box 97, SB306 Ohio Emergency Management Agency Perry, Ohio 44081 2855 West Dublin Granville Road Columbus, Ohio 43235-2206 Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.

Andrew G. Berg, Esq.

Lew W. Myers Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &

Vice President - Nuclear, Perry Feld, L.L.P.

l Centerior Service Company Suite 400 P.O. Box 97, A200 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW.

i Perry, Ohio 44081 Washington, D.C. 20036

i

-p NRC MEETING WITH THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY l

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT 1 l

LIST OF ATTENDEES MARCH 24. 1997 NAME ORGANIZATION l

J. Hopkins NRC J. Kudrick NRC i

R. Elliott NRC M. Marshall NRC K. Kavaaagh NRC A. D'Angelo NRC A. Serkiz NRC i

T. Hilston CEI J. Powers CEI G. Rhoads CEI l

S. Dodeja CEI l

R. Bryan ENERCON l

E. Holcomb ENERCON l

A. Schneider ENERCON R. Corlett ENERCON consultant G. Ashley SENENTEC l

D. Smith ENTERGY-Grand Gulf Sta.

l R. Ingram ENTERGY-Grand Gulf Sta.

l l

l t

ENCLOSURE 1

>i!

I!

IlIil; l,tl;j,i I!!!i: $Ifl!!i;! <

1 M

T A

N R

A G

L O

P RW P

R E

RI 7

E W

E V 9

E 9

O N R 1

I P

A R

R N 4

2 A

T G H

I E

SS C

L N E R

C O D A

U M

N T D I

C N Y

U A R

S R

E S

P C

C E

?{

f ),%

j; j,

R ' :., g.

.,I

@Qa@mw 1

l:

t i

I INTRODUCTION 2

1 i

t

. MEETING OBJECTIVES

\\

. STRAINER DESIGN OBJECTIVES t

. SCHEDULE

. DESIGN OVERVIEW l

1' i

mi~

. DESIGN EVALUATION

+ EFFECT OF CHANGES ON ORIGINAL DESIGN BASIS

=#*i

+ DESIGN ASPECTS TO PRECLUDE FAILURE OF STRAINER 1A!4 s

i r

+ POTENTIAL FAILURES AND CONSEQUENCES l

+ LOAD

SUMMARY

l l

. HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS EVALUATION i

SUMMARY

l.

i h

. TESTING PROGRAM (PROPRIETARY) l N

8, l

I I

i L

i' MEETING OBJECTIVES 3

i i

k. :.....

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

f 1

l

~

i

. REVIEW PNPP 50.59 EVALUATION j

sau, jgg

+ STRAINER PERFORMANCE RELATED TO 50.46 REQUIREMENTS

+ USE OF ACOUSTIC METHODOLOGY FOR LOADS l

+ OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 44<

idi vev f

. REVIEW RESULTS OF 1/4-SCALE TEST PROGRAM l

+

I

?

1

f<

i t

STRAINER DESIGN OBJECTIVES 4

i l

= FULLY RESPOND TO BULLETIN 96-03 FOLLOW GUIDANCE OF RG 1.82, REV. 2 g@$egjdj e iEM I

{

. DEVELOP STRAINER DESIGN TO SATISFY BULLETIN 96-03

?

+ EVALUATED OPTIONS l

[k

+ SELECTED BEST CONCEPTUAL STRAINER DESIGN OPTION

- LARGE PASSIVE STRAINER DESIGN

+ DEVELOPED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

+ CONDUCTED TESTING TO PROVE CONCEPT i

I o COMPLETING FINAL DESIGN m

(

1. {'s a

r

&i 1

s I

i PROGRAM SCHEDULE REWEW 5

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 6/28/96 PREBID MEETING 7/2/96 BIDS RECEIVED 7/10/96 CONTRACT AWARD 7/12/96 COMPLETED CONCEPT DESIGN EVALUATIONS 8/1/96

~

-p COMPLETED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 9/30/96 l

.t 1/4-SCALE TESTS 10/1/96 - 11/20/96 STARTED FINAL DESIGN 10/96 l

START PROCUREMENT 3/97 FINAL DESIGN COMPLETE 7/97 l

7 e

IMPLEMENTATION - RFO6 9/97 i

a t

i S.A

l t

DESIGN OVERVIEW 6

1

. APPROACH VELOCITY MAXIMUM OF 0.020 FPS DESIRED

. MAINTAIN ECCS FUNCTIONAL GROUP SEPARATION AND INDEPENDENCE l

jf3. INSULATION AND OTHER DEBRIS j

ME

+ PIPE BREAK ZONE OF INFLUENCE BASED ON BWROG URG METHOD 1 AND METHOD 2

+ 100% TRANSPORT FROM DRYWELL ASSUMED FOR FIBER

>=+

I, AND MISC DEBRIS i

. SEISMIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS j

+ ACOUSTIC METHODOLOGY FOR LOAD REDUCTION

+ GESSAR 11 METHODS FOR LOADS & COMBINATION i

+ PNPP SSE / OBE SEISMIC LOADS i

e4 d

. ECCS PUMP NPSH EVALUATED AT 185 F r

m j

I i

DESIGN EVALUATION CRITERIA 7

i E

SUPPORT RESOLUTION SCHEDULE ESTABLISHED BY NRC i

$Njg MINIMlZE SENSITIVITY TO UNCERTAINTIES f

+

ZONE OF INFLUENCE AND TRANSPORT

+

LONG-TERM HEAD LOSS 3

C ELEVATED pH gg

+

W EXTRAPOLATION OF TEST DATA AND ANALYSIS Ene

+

OPTIMlZE INSTALLATION DURING OUTAGE k

~

OPERATIONAL SIMPLICITY

i i

i t

PASSNE STRAINER DESIGN 8

l l

f LARGE TORODIAL STRAINER WITH INTERNAL DIVIDERS FOR f

ECCS FUNCTIONAL GROUP SEPARATION h

hfk LOW PROFILE STRAINER TO MINIMlZE EFFECTS OF HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS e$i LARGE SURFACE AREA WITH APPROACH VELOCITY ON THE i

gw'

~

ORDER OF 0.020 FPS t

MODULAR CONSTRUCTION TO FACILITATE INSTALLATION I

N i

3 2

i

J 4-m:

t E

1 L

l

• I

'90 e $.

1

=

e*

1

.~;

b' W*

2*

• ~

4 e

t 2:

l i

!~

.e

• a a'.

b; gg

.C;

./... n

,i.t:

m 1

.u.

. 9 i

~ a.

=

F-g

's',

~

.')

.3 aj j'

I bt,',1 ::

,, 3 1. j l. *! l

'M

. V,

, '. \\,...'. t

' ' * ! ! l j..,

• t e.

,g *.i

' / /

ta

• /

Y

/.*,,

h.

,.,'A'

~

. N, N

'/,

.O 5.."

5 g

a,,

• 5 3

. '. s,4 5

=y-e 3,

b

'E

?,

g-e,

' j, {' },.

e s

h...'{;'>

u u

s-l

". O g

j g

k,-

g e

y s

.i. _. _.

.. g e,.

a_._._. _. g_

.s.,

l r4

's,

f.. '

y.,

p

~s i

e S

y c,

g l7

,.y

,/,,

, '\\,

C, I,I

~

s,

'\\,

,r4

,I l,

• 4 '. \\ '.

l

,I....ll

. t '.

C '.

s st.,

s

.#W a..

l

<. g.,7 c: q G

b P _Y t

I i

1

}

bi

)

J

)

x.

d i

i a

l J -.

_.a

+ _ -

a.

,.a_.

_a.a am-__u-_a--A_.uwa_-w__a_.

m.v.,s aa-mi.-_ms,aA...i,4.is.a m am as

_w.

men.w-m.m.a a

.IW-.r-i.su

• • 4.-.~._es.a r=-4

)

~

s, j

-[

1 g

1

' i; ps f

L,..

w.

.. :; y' s

. y

,. ~

.Y*-.

Nem.'

l lH J M Q j p [ g,l. j j

~

\\

.8 yw s

mm

< g,t l

i,.ps_.

..9 y

4,

-. tf

• 2 4

g I

A

^

Y.,. * -)*(if, it./ l,'

1 T.T W 4' 3., h,f

)

.(

~

'.'*b

. y b 4,..-

_.L '.R *;ge

(.

j g.-

~,% %.'. 3.,_

g'c,n : g ; : : r g.

~'

..g y.y -

~

}.#,. w, lg n.' '

, 37 4.

f

. w r,9,.,a. n.. : : a.

....w

.. g...-.

..(;

1.. :,. :.>. '.-.

_ ~.if,,0. %.. p* Q..a.-,,~h. [ : -

A.

. lg.f:

.R+..

~

p. s. k_ j*

• y.' $. a.;f g.

f

} r.'

'Q.

f ~

s

~

%,: ?.

s: -

.- - %y' '... >

..=

0 fed.*.4

. N '

m T'

__ l

, ;..- l.:h,g,-Q,tl y..

. R...

r

.=

v\\..,,. l..., 5,[

'. ' h,

/

, g u

.. Q f,.< m' W A i J. '

' ~

s

~

e 9.nr

(

q l^, i.

- f'

'?

.., ~.

t y.

r,

_ q.rq

.a. -

c..

L.

g..

g

.e f",

~

y.-..

. 0 q

9 I,

.. s.? :

• 4*pa % '.9 e,. %a,,

e 9,. e f'

s..-s-,wsa-.n.a-->aw>saaaaa-an.--.

u_ _ ~,... _., _ _

t 8

l 1

i i

Y i

[

l l

ss

=

i

1. '\\

t 934 l

Si

'1 Uj,

i l

a--m

--J--e

.4 s mk m1-J de-km'""-b------A

• -4""^

^ - ' ^ ' ' ' " "

" " ' ~ - ' ~ - ' * * ' " ' " " '

~~""

j i

i

/

-. J

-p gk i

q..+yk-ff&p.,.,

--l

~. '.

.s 2..

. J.

O b.d l -. ( d.

j

~

4 1

j e

4s..,,K l

u*

l i

y "..v

.3:

4 t

s

' 'R &i' '.

k.

g_

,e

..,a

+ +

j

.I,,

af-l 3

l

?-

h.

?

.c r

l q

• ,u.

, e a

}

dk i

4

' }. '

(_

6-e

,q s,

e 1

e

~

i g,

~

..k

[

.,y -

9 i

4 g

e s,..

a a,*

4 4

)

J

-w,

. *' ' q,' _ :.

n e

y e,..

w!..,

1 M

=.

4 J'

j 1

j I

i ll 7,

j

. c g,%

4 4,

i 1

1 4

J 1

1

.d i

.i

,w wy,

--w-.,,,

w-,w-y wy-w ww--w-----w-vr

EFFECTS Or CHANGE ON ORIGINAL DESIGN BASIS 9

i

. ECCS/RCIC NPSH REQUIREMENTS AND NPSH AVAILABLE REG. GUIDE 1.1 REQUIREMENTS MET

+

REG. GUIDE 1.82, REV. 2 INVOKES REG. GUIDE 1.1

+

.g.fg GE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR ECCS/RCIC NPSHA l

(Mlf?$:

+

l wass

. ECCS FUNCTIONAL GROUP SEPARATION INTERNAL DIVIDER PLATES AT EACH DIVISION

+

INTERFACE

.gg Nk TWO DIVIDERS EACH ALSO SEPARATED TO PRECLUDE l

+

!$b SINGLE FAILURE AFFECTING MORE THAN ONE DIVISION i

. RCIC SEPARATED FROM HPCS i

+

DIVIDER PLATES IN OUTER CHANNEL AT DIV. 2/3 j

INTERFACE l

~$

+

INNER / OUTER CHANNEL SEPARATION i

B$l b

~

EFFECTS OF CHANGE ON ORIGlhAL DESIGN BASIS 10 l

. EFFECT ON POOL MIXING AND POOL STRATIFICATION EFFECTS CONSIDERED

+ EXISTING STRAINERS HAVE SINGLE POINT SUCTION

}

hfg;

+ NEW STRAINER DESIGNED FOR 360 DEGREE SUCTION 4hMR SOURCE

+ 1/10-SCALE TEST FOR PERRY SHOWED NO SHORT CIRCUITING AND ADEQUATE MIXING, AND IDENTIFIED f

~

Q4 OPTIMAL DISCHARGE ANGLE AND DEPTH FOR RETURN LINES

+ 1/4-SCALE (STRAINER AND CONTAINMENT) TESTING SHOWED GOOD MIXING OF POOL j

+ SUCTION POINT LOWER IN POOL WITH NEW STRAINER -

EVALUATION SHOWS HEAT REMOVAL STILL ADEQUATE TO f

MAINTAIN POOL (AND CONTAINMENT) TEMPERATURE y

va i

o

i EFFECT OF CHANGE ON ORIGINAL

~

DESIGN BASIS 11 l

. EFFECT OF STRAINER ON POOL LEVEL / VOLUME 8

+ TECH SPEC POOL LEVEL UNAFFECTED 1

o MINIMUM VENT COVERAGE ASSURED POST-LOCA

[g g

+ HEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY / CAPACITY EFFECT i

INSIGNIFICANT

$$e o LESS THAN 0.40% OF POOL VOLUME DISPLACED s

i o SUFFICIENT VOLUME REMAINS TO CONDENSE STEAM g

POST-LOCA o STRAINER STRUCTURE HEAT CAPACITY ~ EQUALS THAT OF WATER DISPLACED o SENSITIVITY STUDIES IN CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS BOUND THIS CHANGE s.

FFECTS OF CHANGE ON ORIGINAL I

ESIGN BASIS 12 t

. STRAINER SUSCEPTIBILITY TO AIR INGESTION OR ENTRAPMENT

+ STRAINER ENCROACHES INTO SRV EXCLUSION ZONE kLN (GE SPEC)

(

+ STRAINER ENCROACHES DRYWELL WALL EXCLUSION ZONE (<10 FT FROM DRYWELL WALL - GE SPEC)

_7,j l

1 9

.?

1 A9 e3

• ds 5fk!b

l EFFECTS OF CHANGE ON ORIGINAL DES /GN BASIS 13 j

l

. DESIGN NOT CONDUCIVE TO AIR INGESTION OR ENTRAPMENT

+ SOLID SURFACE AT PUMP SUCTION LOCATIONS -

PRECLUDES DIRECT AIR IMPlNGEMENT l

+ INTERNAL RIBS MINIMlZE AIR TRANSPORT TO SUCTION jgjjpg TEE EF

+ LOW APPROACH VELOCITY NOT SUPPORTIVE OF AIR l

FLOW TO STRAINER (~20 TIMES LESS THAN EXISTING OR i

ORIGINAL)

I if

+ HOLE SIZE SAME AS EXISTING STRAINER - OPEN AREA j

sf I

gj PERCENTAGE LESS ON A PER SQ. FT BASIS

+ AIR WOULD BE RELEASED QUICKLY DUE TO LOW APPROACH VELOCITY AND LOW FLOW VELOCITY

+ HPCS AND RCIC SUCTION FROM OUTER CHANNELS, 6

FARTHER FROM SRV ZONE AND DRYWELL WALL i

i

%y

+ LOW PRESSURE ECCS OPERATION AT RUNOUT FLOW NOT j

li COINCIDENT WITH SRV ACTUATION OR LOCA VENT CLEARING

b i

1 EFFECTS OF CHANGE ON ORIGINAL

~

DESIGN BASIS 14 I

i j

l

. EFFECT ON CONTAINMENT LOADS & LOADS DEFINITIONS

+ STRAINER LOCATED AT POOL BOTTOM l

l jd(ggj

+ LOCATED BELOW VOLUME AFFECTED BY LOCA BUBBLE i

4 hiMa

/ VENT CLEARING / POOL SWELL

+ NOT A FLOW OBSTRUCTION FROM BOTTOM ROW OF VENTS 1

r*

+ CONDENSATION OSCILLATION AND CHUGGING OCCUR s.

MiE!

AT TOP ROW OF VENTS

+ LOCATED AT BOTTOM OF SRV QUENCHER EXCLUSION ZONE

+ CONFIRMATORY (SIMPLIFIED) CFD ANALYSIS BEING f

DONE j

e

f EFFECTS OF CHANGE ON ORIGINAL

~

DESIGN BASIS 15 i

. ECCS FUNCTIONAL GROUPS i

1

+ MECHANICAL SEPARATION ACHIEVED FOR THREE l

FUNCTIONAL GROUPS:

l 6

1 hk LPCS AND ONE LPCI (DIVISION 1) i l

TWO LPCI (DIVISION 11) y HPCS (DIVISION lil)

%s

+ LONG-TERM, IN ADDITION TO THE INITIATING EVENT, THE l

E ECCS IS ABLE TO SUSTAIN A SINGLE FAILURE, EITHER PASSIVE OR ACTIVE, AND STILL HAVE AT LEAST ONE i

l LOW-PRESSURE ECCS PUMP OPERATING WITH A HEAT l

EXCHANGER I

29 a

i d

i

__ __ _ _ _____ _ j

EFFECTS OF CHANGE ON ORIGINAL 1

DESIGN BASIS 16 i

j

. ECCS FUNCTIONAL GROUPS (CONTINUED) l

+ SEPARATION BARRIERS (PERFORATED PLATES)

CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN STRAINER SECTIONS FOR ECCS FUNCTIONAL GROUPS TO ENSURE FAILURE OF ONE l

jhllgj{

STRAINER SECTION WILL NOT AFFECT THE REMAINING FUNCTIONAL GROUP (S) i 1

+ RCIC AND HPCS SEPARATED i

i l

h

/

j s

i I

l

\\

l l

i ff(l

EFFECTS OF CHANGE ON ORIGINAL i

DESIGN BASIS 17

'4

's

',..., -. - 4w a ECCS PUMP NPSH l

+

FOLLOW REGULATORY GUIDE 1.1

$${gg&{hlljhPUMPED FLUID

}

o USE MAXIMUM EXPECTED TEMPERATURE OF ECCS

(

o NO CREDIT TAKEN FOR CONTAINMENT j

PRESSURIZATION N

PREVIOUS CALCULATIONS CONSERVATIVELY USED 212 F

+

$h FOR ECCS NPSH (GE DESIGN SPEC)

$1'

+

CONTAINMENT DESIGN TEMPERATURE IS 185 F.

MAXIMUM CALCULATED SUPPRESSION POOL f

TEMPERATURE POST-LOCA IS LESS THAN 185 F.

a THEREFORE,185 F USED FOR NPSH CALCULATIONS l

+

NPSH AVAILABLE WITHOUT STRAINER LOSSES l

4 APPROXIMATELY 29 TO 30 FT USING 185 F r;

1 g

j a

i

DESIGN ASPECTS TO PRECLUDE i

FAILURE OF STRAINER 18 i

. STRAINER DESIGNED TO ASME CODE REQUIREMENTS (BUT NOT AN ASME COMPONENT) ff

+ MATERIALS ASME 11

+ WELDING ASME IX l

+ NDE ASME V g

. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR DEFECTS - AWS D1.1 lkh

. MATERIALS SELECTED AND PROCESSES SPECIFIED TO PRECLUDE CORROSION

+ LOW CARBON 304 / 316 STAINLESS STEEL l

8

b o

DESIGN ASPECTS TO PRECLUDE FAILURE OF STRAINER 19

...r.

i

. DEBRIS QUANTITIES USED FOR SIZING ARE CONSERVATIVE i

+ STRAINER SIZED FOR 100% DRYWELL FIBER DEBRIS LOAD l

+ SLUDGE AND CORROSION PRODUCTS > BWROG URG f

p

+ OTHER DEBRIS PER BWROG URG r

l l

. VERY LOW APPROACH VELOCITY - < 0.020 FPS l

kk3 l

?*th a

. STRAINER DESIGNED FOR POSTULATED LOADINGS

+ SEISMIC SSE / OBE

+ HYDRODYNAMIC (SRV AND LOCA) f w

+ COMBINATIONS OF LOADS (GESSAR 11 SEQUENCE) w$fil a

+

h DESIGN ASPECTS TO PRECLUDE i

FAILURE OF STRAINER 20 l

MISSILE PROTECTION (REG. GUIDE 1.82, REV. 2)

. NO CREDIBLE MISSILE IN SUPPRESSION POOL 7

^

Ik[hh

. EQUIPMENT ABOVE POOL SEISMICALLY SUPPORTED

. LARGE EQUIPMENT IN POOL SWELL AREA QUALIFIED /

PROTECTED m

h k "h@

e.

t 1

POTENTIAL FAILURES AND FAILURE CONSEQUENCES 21 l

. FUNCTIONAL FAILURE OF STRAINER SECTION CONSIDERED

+ ECCS SEPARATION PROVIDED TO PRECLUDE LOSS OF MORE THAN ONE DIVISION / GROUP

+ LOSS OF SINGLE ECCS FUNCTIONAL GROUP ANALYZED i

IN PNPP SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT kk m

l

{

A

'f g

. Cjc -

l

w l

2 g

w l

POTENTIAL FAILURES AND FAILURE l

CONSEQUENCES 22 r

. COMPLETE CLOGGING AND LOSS OF NPSH i

+ STRAINER SIZED FOR 100% DRYWELL FIBER DEBRIS j

y *t LOAD AND CONSERVATIVE AMOUNTS OF OT.HER DEBRIS m

+ TESTS CONFIRM STRAINER CAPABILITY WITH MAXIMUM DEBRIS POSTULATED

+ NO CREDIT IS TAKEN FOR STRAINER CLEANING BY 7.

OPERATION IN POOL COOLING MODE 5-i

+ TESTS CONFIRM EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE WITH l

ELEVATED pH AND NO APPARENT LONG TERM HEAD LOSS EFFECTS WITH MAXIMUM DEBRIS LOADING J

+ DEBRIS SETTLING IS CREDITED, BASED ON EMPIRICAL i

RESULTS FROM 1/4-SCALE TESTING i

k

(

i SUPPRESSION POOL LOAD

SUMMARY

~

SUBMERGED STRUCTURES l

Evaluation l

Loads I

Seismic Seismic Inertia Contributes to the design contmlling load.

Seismic Sloshing Contributes to the design controlling load.

t Not design controlling since the strainer is open and the net effect of the Hydrostatic Pressure hydrostatic pressure is negligible.

SRV Actuation Water Jet Load Not design controlling since the loads induced outside a sphere circumscribed around the quencher arms is small.

Air Bubble Load Contributes to the design controlling load.

The water jet reaches the strainers, and this contributes to the design controlling Vent Clearing Water Jet Load load.

Pool Swell Drag Load Not design controlling since the strainers are floor mounted and only extend three feet above the pool floor. Since the LOCA bubble forms at the top vents, the pool swell phenomenon does not cause water to flow upward past the strainers.

Fallback Not a design controlling load.

Condensation Oscillation Not a design controlling load.

Loads Chugging Not a design controlling load.

LOCA Bubble Pressure Contributes to the design controlling load.

Load Not design controlling - significantly smaller than loads caused by the waterjet Compressive Wave for structures close to drywell, and insignificant for structures near containment.

STRAINER LOAD REDUCTIONS 23

\\

. ACOUSTIC WAVE METHODOLOGY USED TO DEVELOP SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS (SOURCES - PRESSURES -

FORCES) FROM:

+ SRV QUENCHER AIR-BUBBLE Ie

+ CHUGGING

+ CONDENSATION OSCILLATION

. SOURCE FUNCTIONS (PRESSURE VS. TIME CURVES)

DEVELOPED TO REPRODUCE GESSAR 11 METHODOLOGY WALL e_

LOADS (PRESSURE AMPLITUDE AND FREQUENCY CONTENT) kiff[

. ACOUSTIC METHODOLOGY PREVIOUSLY USED FOR POOL f

BOUNDARY LOADS AND SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS j

+ MARK 11 CHUGGING AND CONDENSATION OSCILLATION l

(MARK 11 IMPROVED CHUGGING METHODOLOGY TASK A.16, NUREG-0808) l i

h.

+ EVALUATION OF STEAM CONDENSATION IN THE MARK lil M

SUPPRESSION POOL FROM THE RHR HX RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINE f

I I

STRAINER LOAD REDUCTIONS 24 i

l t

l

?

l ANALYSIS BEING DONE TO CONFIRM BOUNDARY LOADS ARE i

i CONSERVATIVE COMPARED TO MARK 111 CONTAINMENT TEST i

RESULTS CONTAINMENT LINER, WALL, BASEMAT, STRUCTURAL i

- c#

!5f e n COLUMNS ANALYZED FOR LOADS TRANSMITTED VIA l

STRAINER - ALL ACCEPTABLE i

e STRAINER EFFECTS ANALYSIS l

1eu 4

4; i

l w

t

i

SUMMARY

25 i

. FULLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF REG. GUIDE 1.82, REV. 2 i

BY USE OF BOUNDING ASSUMPTIONS SUPPORTED BY TEST

l DATA 1

i t

. USE OF LOAD REDUCTION METHODS FOUND NOTTO REDUCE MARGIN OF SAFETY UNDER 50.59 35

n

. EXISTING LICENSING BASIS FOR CONTAINMENT LOADS AND LOAD DEFINITION UNAFFECTED BY CHANGE y

{

. NO ADDITIONAL SUBMITTALS ARE PLANNED PRIOR TO E

IMPLEMENTATION a

>g l$!

i

~

l t

Application of the Acoustic Methodology to the PNPP ECCS l

]

Large Passive Suction Strainer Submerged Structure Loads l

)

e Science and Engineering Technology, Incorporated i

I i

^

s02872;C t

h

I Simplifying Assumptions

.~. -

i i

e The fluid is isentropic (ds/dt = 0}.

I o The change in fluid pressure is j

proportional to the change in fluid density.

e The local fluid velocity is small compared to the local sonic velocity.

l l

l

-~-

Ama+

4w1.a...nnana.ns x 2

- -,a-n--m

- a + n s..na m a -a m--.mun+r

-..nn-m

. men -e.-s--_-a-.w2.-

..a.n-..wa.>

-r-.w,.an.

, aa.

l 1

4 i

1 1

es n

O v

M N

h d

i H'

1, ct,

'-t 'y l

g, l

j 1

i i..

i i

d a

w i

i

~

i O

i i

e,.m5

__Y

• =e w -

b n.

.i

• • # w k

e j g

j l

4 C

I 4y *+

li

?.

e

'. 1.n/

i k

4

.i d

a,-.,sn444 m-a--

a.0

.=====e6A a--

-4 m-s

& e a.6

.a 4

eL,.mAsM4G+ =.-BW4M4 e-AW.s4kA-Ahm+mMm-s.m-men. w M-A o4b ao=wA-=+=mAv.uuum--WeAAALaa,Ge6L=--Me==~A4.s.44&-k<Mam.,

t i

4 4

/~

~

^s

. %.y i

w i

\\

I Y

i N

i; C

b d

d l

I<.",

M l

y r'%

W i

H

~

NJ t

N l

-..--a

.\\#

j

'i

~

• n, 1

y 1

.w-T 1

(

1 i

4 *-

j%t'fr.4, '

I i

• .J e

l

~u m e ewemme

,l,..

• i

'%><.,,c' f,

I'%

1 l

O i

.~c-1 j

r

)

3 oo h

N c3 y

C4 T

1 i

g l

f b

g i

O C

1

\\

e 1

4

.w--

.a4-+:no easm.-m-~n.um,

."Ma

-a, ame-r

-4an.iin..e eAA%wmo ams.,z,,maswm.am,_4a_Ax.,s-s.-4uom-m4,,

a s e,L

.e_sL a4 A44m.A

&,-a._._w,-L-as.,,,Lm,AM AMas s_,14 i

i 4

4 4

4

,e s%

i

\\

4 n.

4 i

1 W

m j

s 1

M b

}

M i 'M,

i 1

V ?%

1 1

P'

)

"D b

l Q

L.

}

's.,,s i

?-

1 O

l 3

j

~

.~,

p.am -i.+ -

4 l

N-Na t

h f

a

\\

~~,

ueg

'8 #9 g w.

t e

i d

Tr; i

W l

m_.

a W

399 e

~. _....

7 1-

{

p

-=

~~

3 s;,-

4 j

M*.

]

1 i

l I

.4m-.am.sa d.J-mm-a-aa==

I--

--M-~=SWM.*d***

4d'M*"A"4-5--

1. D-"#~* - ' *"J"M*4""^^#

• h'#'*#8'"

~-'#'

- - ^

e.

j

\\,

b C

4 O

~... -

M 3

M Q

D

=

4

~

==

4 l

X

.i

~~

c i

C

~

l c,

O

• s i

10

~

M i

.~

i i

o

l i

Flexible-Boundary Solution (1) i e Flexible-boundary eigenfunctions are approximately equal to the rigid-boundary eigenfunctions i

i

--4 tw

/;,

y f

. b.,

J *

>f w'

2:

l

}

.-~

I

I Flexible-Boundary Solution (2) o Coupled fluid-structure eigenfrequency is j

shifted downward from the rigid-boundary eigenfrequency

$ /

p ?.

T l ^+J

l_

• n( '

s

[

j* l

- - - - ~ ~ = -.

g--

i

! t I

n

/

c e

ait + pC

t Flexible-Boundary Solution (3)

~.....

...~

t t

e Structural damping gives rise to fluid j

m damping.

f:?

a.:

t

~

.[

.b._...... _

[

[f vu

,. i

.m

~

a

/t j

i

-'4 h

Comparison with Potential Flow (1) i i

e Spatial components of both acoustic and j

potential flow theory are the same.

i i

[

,']

}

\\

(--

\\

l t

I l J ( '. /, ~ ~:

v; /T y( X. / i j

I I

h f -+

f-l

,_1

/

'T s

\\'

'~

(1?5 y

[ ;s ---.~.. 0, / t.W (.]f

.'}^,

r 1

y st q,$

t 5

i l

-[

i t

Comparison with Potential Flow (2) l

{

o Consequently, any geometry that has solutions for potential flow theory will j

1 also have solutions for acoustic theory.

l l

e less assumptions are required for acoustic j

theory (Incompressible fluid assumption) i 0

rn-e

m x__ma_

m_eu.A-6 k-42_

A m de_G-wAn-MM-5-M

"---AMAA4"A n--

""MMA-"0=""'"

'""*"A" h*'

" * * ' ' ' * " ^~' ' ~

6 8

1

)

l 4

1

..r):*

5. g s

i

• %M 1

• N ce o,

p i

3 g

i

%d l

O S

j W

4 h

• D Q

'w' [2}.':.". -

./

s

]

g

("

_ ~~ 1 l

b o

t o

u DO w

9 e

1.

x w

Submerged Structure Loads (2)

= - -.

j e Long wavelength of pressure field acoustic components relative to submerged structure diameter e Pressure field is not distorted by local boundary conditions of submerged objects l

f l

4 Submerged Structure Loads (3)

)

t mnw.

.s,..s.-

i e Acoustic Methodology Calculates j

Pressure response

~ 5 im !

T t i l. v v. m ); e 1

n

?,.: n '.

c,

\\

v.m) l a

f

.i i-i e Structure Acceleration was measured

{

i

?

l

.- T

/I

• f.

h

/,/

/

s,

\\

/

.,j

[4 i

)t 3.,[j t

l-.

i

q. ),;

~

e j

s e

t

L I

Submerged Structure Loads (4) 1 l

I e Consequently it is necessary to convert the 1

calculated submerged structure load to an 4

acceleration for comparison with the measured j

acceleration.

i 3

a f_.

g

-;; m >![>:,.,1) l I

i l

e This requires a structural computer code l

- t

i

\\

[

i Validity of Acoustic Methodology e Acoustic methodology has been demonstrated via comparison with finite-element analysis and j

test data.

o Long wavelength of pressure field is not i

distorted by submerged objects.

l o Source functions can be generated that will l

recover boundary design pressure response.

l

i

~l i

Application to Mark III I'

e The acoustic methodology has already been approved (3EREG-0808) for use in determining Mark II suppression pool boundary as well as submerged structure loads.

e We propose to apply to Mark III (PNPP) i only the transfer function part of the acoustic methodology.

.l t

-I Application to Mark III (2) i e Application to PNPP Mark III will require both a certification that the acoustic methodology does indeed apply and demonstration that appropriate f

source functions have been selected.

i l

e Certification means a demonstration via a j

comparison between calculated and measured suppression pool boundary pressure responses.

t i

i Application to Mark III (3)

I e Certification requires a demonstration that the suppression pool boundary pressure responses calculated by the acoustic methodology compare appropriately with pressure responses t

measured in the Mark III test facility.

f~

p<.an.. (' X, i (0 ? <=>

p n! cas.

X j,

C O,O 7.

q x

l

i I

[

Application to}VIark III (4) e Because the acoustic transfer function is known, certification is tantamount to demonstrating that a single source function can be found that when applied i

synchronously will recover the measured t

pressure response.

i j

_ ) c,,, Sy..

..i s

/.

i e

3

, :, 5 Y

i

.L..'

\\..

Y t.l alit' p'Ylcl?

o)):

\\.

l i

)

\\~

t

l Application to Mark III (5)

)

. ~.. ~

o Common source applied synchronously t

~ ~ [l] l ', S{~v~

l fs

\\

h Y! \\. \\

Y

, f())] C'

~*

<t > >

t

[l*(X(t?]=-./._,,

r t

i

(-

I.

/

i s

f i

f i

s: -,

(s/

'h,

g

~*

'd 0.. [i/.,h

\\' 1, f

?

a s

\\

e-e 1

f I

l l

1

---

---l

l Application to Mark III (6)

)

i e Determination that appropriate source functions are being used to evaluate the submerged structure loads for the PNPP large passive ECCS suction strainers requires that the " bump up" factor is sufficient to account for the sparse Mark III database.

5 f

i Applicatiosi to} Mark III (7) e " Bump up" factor can be demonstrated via a comparison of the suppression pool boundary pressure response calculated in PNPP using the source function determined from test facility measured pressure response (data source) with the pressure response obtained using the source j

function being used for PNPP ECCS suction j

strainer submerged structure load evaluation (ECCS source?.

~

A'-M-*-ms--A s,a_omm_

4 8"'8**-a**J=.a-.,m,m_=

a a a s.,.w-m 1

i l

00 l

e4 v

l m

W

[5 O

M D

D l

w v

v g

%/

%d I

y.

w i,

w v

1 w

l

)

w g.

k[^'

I* /**'.

w i

u.

.m

,. ~,, - ~..,

At.3 As.

.w

,w g

' es

\\'

=

Ps g

s s

.~

W

' Mr

",,,c '

h LM

I I

?

~

Heaviside Step Function 9(y1 s.:

j

()

.\\ > ()

j t

f f

Acoustic Source Functions (3) i e acoustic source function conservatism :

l e (1) All amplitude factors are selected with E equal to unity such that target pressure trace is

)

bounded in peak over pressure and peak underpressure.

t e (2) Target trace is bounded in power by frequency.

e (3) Zero relative phase difference between the Sinusoid components.

l J

-l l

Conclusions t

e Application of the acoustic methodology for 1

boundary and submerged structure loads in annular suppression pools has been demonstrated and accepted by NRC.

e Application to Mark IIIis only a natural extension and consists of two parts.

e The first part is the direct application of the acoustic transfer function uniquely adjusted.

l 1

I I

l Conclusions (2)

I e The second part is the development of sources appropriate for P:NPP Mark III application.

}

o PNPP Mark III unique source functions that incorporate a " bump up" factor can be generated from P:NPP Mark III design l

suppression pool pressure responses.

i

r Conclusions (3) i k

l e Although such source functions will not yield load reduction for suppression pool boundary, the submerged structure loads will be more realistic and reflect the same

" bump up" factor.

i l

Perry Nuclear Power Plant ECCS Suction Strainer Testing I

March 24,1997 1

1

r Presentation Overview i

+ Strainer Design Test Program

+

1 i

+ Results

+ Conclusions

[

l t

2

Design Concept Large Surface Area

+

Low Approach Velocity

+

~0.02 fps 4

l 3

i J

9 i

Design Intent

+ Full Compliance with XRCB 96-03 and RG 1.82 t

+ 100% of Drywell Fiber Inventory

+ 100% Transport Fraction

+ Minimum Sensitivity to Corrosion Products and Other Types of Debris 1

l i

4 l

Design Features

+ Large, Toroidal Strainer i

+ Common Suction for 5 ECCS plus RCIC l

+ Two Independent Flow Conduits Three primary straining surfaces per conduit i

I 5

l Model Strainer Design

+ Constructed 1/4-scale model of strainer

+ Geometrically similar in major detail i

+ Center gap scaled by L/4

+ Floor gap preserved

)

+ Mesh size same as prototype j

+ Generic design

- Major radius was a compromise

- Minor radius based on River Bend l

f 6

Discussion Topics Test Program Overview Measurements Scaling Flow Configurations Debris Source Term Summary of Test Results i

i l

7 i

i I

t i

Test Program Overview i

+ E sed Mark III 1/4-Scale Test Facility i

+ Constructed 1/4-Scale Model of Strainer

+ Simulated all Five ECCS Pump Loops

+ Pool Circulated with RHR System

+ Eneertainty Analysis Performed to Verify Data Quality 8

Test Program Overview (cont'd)

+ Comprehensive Test Program

+ Separate Procedure for Each Test

+ Multiple ECCS Configurations

( 1,2, and 3 Divisions)

+ Common Suction vs. Divisional Isolation

)

+ Tested Corrosion Products and Other Debns j

+ Separate Effects i

- High pH j

- Long-term Head Loss

- Approach Velocity Variations 9

l i

Measurements i

+ ECCS Flow Rates

+ Strainer Head Loss

+ Suppression Pool Temperature Water Level Local Velocity PH Conductivity

+ Debris Mass 10 l

Scaling

+ Preserved full scale velocities Length I4 Area

^/16 Volume v/g

+ Strainer approach velocity most important

+ RHR-SPC jet exit velocity preserved

+ LOCA vent exit velocity also preserved

+ Wanted head loss measurements to be prototypical 11

Theoretical Debris Bed Thickness

+ For prototypical head loss measurements, it was necessary to preserve the theoretical i

debris bed thickness Length L/

Area

^/

j 16 Debris Mass M/i6

+ Bulk debris concentration in pool is increased by a factor of four compared to plant suppression pool 12

I Flow Configurations i

i

+ Low Flow 1

Preserves strainer approach velocity (~0.016 fps)

+ RHR-SPC Flows i

- (Vapp ~ 0.02 - 0.023 fps)

Preserves discharge velocity and bulk pool velocity j

Preserves wall shear at strainer surface

+ High Flow (Vapp ~ 0.025 - 0.026 fps)

Preserves LOCA vent exit velocity 13 j

l l

l Perry Debris Source Term i

3 NUKON Fiber 3 0 0 0 ft Corrosion Products 500 lbs j

Misc. Particulate Matter (sand, dust, ferrous debris) 150 lbs Rust 50 lbs Paint Chips and Cable Debris 624 lbs Adhesive Labels 8.6 lbs I

Duct Tape 0.3 lbs Tie Wraps 17.2 lbs Plastic Tags 32 i

14

=

Settling of Debris i

Debris settling was observed in testing t

Considered a prototypical effect I

i Characteristic of the low approach velocity strainer design 1

Debris settling dominates tangential transport to active strainer sections Credit is taken for the observed settling j

effects t

15 l

I r

i I

I t

Test Results and Conclusions

)

Strainer head losses were very low

+

Less than 2 feet of H O 2

Range of approach velocities tested (~ 0.016

+

to 0.026 fps) indicates acceptable strainer function with margin

~0.018 fps design approach velocity l

l t

i 16 j

1

i Test Results and Conclusions (cont'd)

+ Configuration of five ECCS pumps generally yielded the highest head losses.

- Greater proximity of debris to active strainer sections i

+ Testing is considered conservative due to debris source term and divisional divider plates.

17 s

Test Results and Conclusions (cont'd)

+ Particulate debris ( e.g. paint chips and iron j

oxide) had minimal effects on head loss.

- Good filtration in fiber bed

- Greater tendency to settle

+ Strainer exhibited no significant sensitivity to high pH or long term head loss.

+ The design complies with NRCB 96-03 and has adequate margin for future plant operability.

1,